Austria Court Refuses to Rule Chimp a Person
The picture to the left is of Hiasl the chimp. An Austrian court just refused to declare him a person. This is good news, but animal liberationists who seek his entry into the moral community of humans will keep at it in Austria and elsewhere until they find a court radical enough to presume to redefine personhood to include animals.
Here are a few excerpts from the AP story with my quick thoughts on the matter:He's now got a human name--Matthew Hiasl Pan--but he's having trouble getting his day in court. Animal rights activists campaigning to get Pan, a 26-year-old chimpanzee, legally declared a person vowed Thursday to take their challenge to Austria's Supreme Court after a lower court threw out their latest appeal.
Silly lede to the story. Hiasl only has a name because it was given to him by humans. We do that kind of thing, for ourselves and for animals. It is part of what we, unlike any other species, do.
A provincial judge in the city of Wiener Neustadt dismissed the case earlier this week, ruling that the Vienna-based Association Against Animal Factories had no legal standing to argue on the chimp's behalf. The association, which worries the shelter caring for the chimp might close, has been pressing to get Pan declared a "person" so a guardian can be appointed to look out for his interests and provide him with a home.No, they want him named a person so they can utterly upset the human/animal apple cart and destroy our belief in human exceptionalism.
The legal tussle began in February, when the animal shelter where Pan and another chimp, Rosi, have lived for 25 years filed for bankruptcy protection. Activists want to ensure the apes don't wind up homeless if the shelter closes...
Their upkeep costs about euro4,800 (US$6,800) a month. Donors have offered to help, but there's a catch: Under Austrian law, only a person can receive personal gifts. Organizers could set up a foundation to collect cash for Pan, whose life expectancy in captivity is about 60 years. But they contend that only personhood will give him the basic rights he needs to ensure he isn't sold to someone outside Austria, where he's now protected by strict animal cruelty laws.
So, Hiasl's future could easily be provided for permanently by establishing a foundation and have it purchase him. But caring for the chimp is secondary to the actual advocacy goal. See above.
There is legal precedence in Austria for close friends to represent people who have no immediate family, "so he should be represented by his closest friends, as is the case," said Eberhart Theuer, the group's legal adviser. "On these grounds we have appealed this decision to the Supreme Court in Vienna," he said. The Association Against Animal Factories points out that it's not trying to get Pan declared a human, but rather a person, which would give him some kind of legal status.
Well, of course he isn't trying to get the chimp declared a human because the animal is a chimp! This, means, however, that a guardianship is clearly not appropriate. Only dependent humans should have legal guardians. Otherwise, the animals could bring lawsuits and be entitled to all of the other protections at law enjoyed by dependent humans--with animal liberationists the real parties in interest using the name of the chimp (or other animal) to pursue their own ideological agendas.
Labels: Chimps as Persons
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 3:21 PM
7 Comments
7 Comments:
Thoughts:
1. If "person" gets redefined to include animals, then the fact that humans evolved from animals gets shoved in the faces of all relgionists.
2. People who aren't religious or who think religion is stupid or bad can shove their beliefs in the face of the religious only if there's some kind of backing to their feelings - that humans aren't the only people. Otherwise, religionists can just say that we don't feel we evolved and therefore don't feel the need to give up on God.
3. The primary target of anyone who's anti-religious is Christianity (although I've seen some pretty strong atheists attacking the Hindu and Buddhist religions, which is weird 'cause Buddhims is basically atheistic). Reason is that Christianity says there's a moral high and low ground and that people who don't follow traditional teachings go to hell. Truth - that's what it says.
4. As a Catholic I've been taught that all humans, even humans that aren't Christian, are made in God's image and that it's immoral to behave badly toward anyone. I'm supposed to pray for my enemies and treat everyone like I want to be treated. My enemies are attacking me by trying to deny that anyone is made in God's image, even themselves.
5. ...why don't they just come out and say, "We want animals to be considered people so that we can put Christians in their place?" At least that would be honest. That's exactly what my beloved Pagan brother and sister say when they support some kind of cause that I think denies human exceptionalism. I don't love them any less. We don't hate each other. We don't fight. They cast spells on my behalf to grant me a better life and I pray for them daily. Why don't people just come out and say what they're feeling so that both sides can get together and work things out?
My sibs and I can respectefully disagree with each other without having to try to tear each other down. Why can't these folks come out and admit why they're attacking human exceptionalism and talk about what the real issues they have are, so that they can work things out with the people around them?
This whole thing seems silly to me.
It is a profound power struggle over the moral values that will prevail in society and govern its public policies. It could not be more important in my view to engage this matter. The problem from my perspective is that the other side (of my beliefs) is fully engaged in the struggle, intellectually, financially, emotionally, while my side snoozes complacently. Dangerous to equality and the intrinsic value of human life.
Wes, for once I think you're right in this post. It's totally strange that they are claiming that they want to make the chimp a "person" so that he can receive gifts/donations. Clearly there is an ulterior motive.
I don't agree that humans are the only creatures that could be called persons, however. Personhood in the philosophical sense shouldn't be defined by species. Plenty of humans might not be persons and I can at least imagine some other creature which could fulfill the requirements of personhood, whatever those might be.
T E Fine: I kinda doubt that the activists who are making this case have the intent of "putting Christians in their place." Also, it's certainly not clear that evolution and creation are incompatible. Didn't the Pope (or a Pope) say as much in the recent past?
I would guess that the inclusion of great apes in the category of "person" is more related to a feeling of empathy for the plight of intelligent animals than to a desire to "shove their beliefs in the face of the religious." Don't take it so personally.
Matteson,
I think the problem with the term person is that you can say that other species ought to be called persons and be technically right based on the broad definitions of personhood that many people bring to the table. It is interesting that it is human beings that are petitioning for this classification given to animals. None of these animals could do so themselves.
I am always curious as to what is meant when the term intelligent is used to describe certain animals. Even animals that we have taught to use extrememly basic language skills were taught by us. In communications, the burden is on the communicator to make themselves understood. The exceptional species teaches other animals to communicate and be understood in a way that is not possible without the higher cognitive abilities of humans. Other than these language experiments I have not personally seen anything in the animal kingdom I am eager to point out as exceptional intelligence.
SO what do you mean when you use animal intelligence as a measure for personhood?
Matteson -
Probably you're right and the folks who are working to define this chimp as a person aren't specifically anti-religious, and evolution isn't a big deal to me (I beleive in evolution, just not Darwinism).
Just that the majority of criticism I've seen from people who are into animal rights or personhood theory is against Christianity. Hell, one guy put up a website explaining problems within Scientology, and he got a flood of emails that he posted complaining how he (an avowed atheist) should turn away from criticizing Scientology or any other religion and focus on the evils of Christianity.
Sometimes it does seem like the big motivating force behind a lot of eco-terrorism and animal liberation.
I'm not really taking it personally (I'm ashamed to admit that I have out-and-out temper tantrums when I *do* take something personally), just stating an observation that bothers me.
BTW - feel free to call me Tabs.
Jay,
I don't know that I said that animals ought to be granted personhood based on intelligence. I don't now claim to know of any animal which would qualify as a person. That might be an empirical fact that we don't have yet. Perhaps whatever quality we eventually designate as person-making is present in some animals or aliens or what-have-you.
It's interesting that you point out the fact that animals can't make contracts. I'm often tempted to say that this is important as well. The ability to make a contract can't be the test of personhood though. There are great numbers of humans that we would want to count as persons (children, the elderly, etc) who clearly can't make contracts. Nevertheless, we want them to count as "persons." If we want to count humans who are in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) as persons then we have to explain how an un-thinking, un-aware, human is more of a person than your average dog or goldfish. I'm not willing to draw lines at the borders of species.
On the topic of "intelligent animals:"
It really has to be relative, I suppose. Chimps exhibit some behaviors that impress me. They can deceive, lie, and know that they are doing so. They may even have moral feelings. In addition, haven't primateologists been able to communicate at least a little with apes in their own way? I seem to remember language studies done with dolphins as well, but I don't have a cite or a good memory of the details. As I said, I doubt that many animals will turn out to be persons. I'm just not going to rule it out.
Tabs,
I have done some study with good folk on personhood theory, and religion never came up. It seems that your experience has been a bit different. Perhaps it was because my study was done in an academic forum in which the purpose was exploration and study instead of "criticism." If you just mean that most folks in the field reject (or at least set aside) the notion of souls, then you're probably right. Souls are tricky things to deal with, and there doesn't seem to be any good data on them. I don't know what to make of them myself.
Matteson -
I think the reason I see more criticism is that I tend to hand out more with people who aren't Christian (you don't just give up liking someone because you're not the same religion, for goodness sake!) and they in turn direct me to critical essays, websites, etc.
Keeping in mind that my mother is a practicing Jew and that I was raised in both traditions, I think the real reason that I see more criticism is that people still harken back to the hell that was anti-Semitism (It's 10:06 pm and I'm exhausted, please forgive my inability to spell - I can't seem to find my dictionary). We try to keep overt religion out of science so that we don't get the Holocaust all over again, which is good, just like we don't need nutjob scientists "proving" that white men are smarter than black men because of how big the white guy's cranium is compared to the black guy's. But I think sometimes it goes too far the other direction and lashes back on the Christian community. One gent lost his job as an editor for a scientific publication when the editors found out he was a Christian, for example.
As for the nature of souls, I can't really help you much with anything more substantial than: about 1/5 of the population has had some kind of experience such as an Approaching Death experience, a ghostly visitation, or a Near Death experience. As one webmaster put it, if a thousand people went to Mars and said there were Martians there, I'd be inclined to believe them, so if a thousand people come very close to death and say there's an afterlife, I'm inclined to believe them. ::shrugs:: That's about as close to scientific as I personally can get. I'm a Lit Major (translation: would you like fries with that?).
BTW - having an interesting conversation here. Thank you for the debate.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home