More on Ape Rights
We are all apes now, as the Spanish Parliament will soon be granting "human" rights to apes, which is actually to say that human rights are being demoted into mere temporary protections. This story deserves greater coverage, and I intend to do something about that in the next few weeks. But for now, here's an excerpt from the Guardian's story:
Using apes in circuses, television commercials or filming will also be banned and while housing apes in Spanish zoos, of which there are currently 315, will remain legal, supporters of the bill have said the conditions in which most of them live will need to improve substantiallyOf course the purpose of this isn't to merely improve the treatment of great apes--which could be accomplished as it already has been in some places via normal animal welfare statutes. Rather, the explicit point of the GAP is revolutionary--to demote human beings from the uniquely valuable species and into merely another animal in the forest. Once people accept that premise, Judeo/Christian philosophy goes to the guillotine allowing the utilitarian agenda to proceed unhindered, leading in turn to the moral value of the weak and vulnerable among us becoming archaic, resulting in their loss of the right to life and being used instrumentally for those deemed more valuable. (Lest you think I exaggerate, check out Peter Singer's writings, and who can deny that his values are triumphing?)
In the world being born out of the ashes of the sanctity/equality of human life ethic, value will be subjective and rights temporary--depending on one's individual capacities rather than humanity. And we will see apes--animals (and eventually other animals), which are completely oblivious about the hue and cry being mounted against human worth in their names--being viewed as more important than some humans.
This is all very dangerous and subversive to human thriving.
Yea, yea, yea. Yawn. What's on the tellie tonight?
Labels: Great Ape Project. Spain.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 11:12 AM
18 Comments
18 Comments:
It's pretty idiotic to call them "human rights" when the supposed bearers of the rights are non-humans. On the other hand, I don't think that humans will ever cease to have rights beyond those ascribed to apes. (e.g. language rights)
I don't see much of a reason to construe this as a move toward utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is foundationally opposed to rights of any kind, for humans or animals or mollusks. Why not say that we're moving toward streams of thought other than Judeo/Christian or Peter Singer's utilitarianism?
In fact, the thought behind laws like this seems much more closely aligned with, say, Mary Midgley or Christine Korsgaard. (And insofar as both are Kantians, they're philosophically much closer to Christianity than they are to utilitarianism, don't you think?)
I confess I don't know either Midgeley or Korsgaard. What do they assert?
I know that there are no rights under utilitarianism. But language is used loosely today. No question that the GAP seeks to dismount J/Cristianity's view of the unique importance of human life.
After that, the question becomes what is it, if not humanity, that gives value?
What do you say?
I may have said this here before and missed your reaction, but I came up with a good definition of what makes human beings unique and uniquely deserving of rights:
We all have a human mother and a human father, and as long as we have children with another human's unmodified genes, our children will be human, as well.
This is why modified gametes threatens human rights, because we won't have any claim to be human anymore, since we'd lack humans for parents and might not have children with another human.
I usually think your pictures are really cool, Wesley, and I always wonder where you get ones that are so vivid for your posts. But this one is a little...tacky. To put it mildly.
Why, by the way, has this particular version of insanity taken such particular hold in Spain, I wonder.
Lydia.... not aquainted with Planet of The Apes????? :( aww... :(
God used evolution throughout his universe, so I do not fear the scientific truths of god's work nor do I fear morality is threatened by it -- personally or ortherwise.
However, I suspect that when people such as yourself frame evolution and the animal origins of man as "evil", you are actually voicing personal fears - it is you who is most vulnerable, and you whose belief would die if you accepted God's scientific reality.
Fair enough, but if that's your fear then a least be honest and admit it. There are a great many more people such as myself who are not only untroubled by Science - including "Darwinian Evolution" - but actually find it inspiring. Do yourself a favor and check out the Catholic Church and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
But...humans are apes (and animals). We are classified as part of the family Hominidae - along with our cousins the chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans.
It is also interesting that you bring up that other apes are oblivious to the actions trying to grant them rights. If we did find some non-human species that was conscious of those actions (say, some alien life or something), they would then be just as valuable as humans, yes?
If I am right in guessing your answer there, doesn't that mean that the characteristic you are really concerned about is not human-ness, but some advanced cognitive abilities (for which human is, at least for now, a convenient shorthand). So, shouldn't you abandon this shortcut in the cases where it doesn't work, like human embryos or intelligent animals?
We are classified as part of the family Hominidae
Accepted scientific taxonomy of phylogeny does not apply in the realm of Christi, excuse me, I mean Human Exceptionalism and the premise of this blog host.
The purported belief here is that we are supernatural beings outside of the classified realm of any other living creature.
Whos to argue, Plato also thought that the universe revolved around mankind.
Gosh, Wesley, you've had quite the invasion of trolls, here.
Yep, you have to be some sort of religious fanatic to see that humans are different from apes. What's the matter with all us irrational people?
DS: Now you go from misconstruing to stating outright falsehoods, requiring me to react when I would prefer to ignore you.
The premise of this blog has nothing to do with religion. Perhaps it is your belief that only religion supports human exceptionalism, or better stated, your two-dimensional shallow caricature of people with whom you disagree, but that does not make it so.
Human Exceptionalism need not contradict the Scientific explanations of the Universe.
If you believe we are created in God's image, then it would be good to remember that we are built from sub-atomic particles, as is all life, as is the Universe itself. Yet God existed before the Universe, and thus before sub-atomic particles. So there is nothing about our physical nature that could possible reflect the image of God. Instead, it is our ability to think new thoughts and create new things that mirrors God.
On a related tangent, as an experiment, apply your beliefs to Neanderthals. Were they "human" like us and have souls or were they merely very sophisticated apes? How could one even determine the difference?
Bit late here, but Lydia, the reason this action took place in Spain is because there are no native apes and no significant primate research in Spain. Thus, when one of the AR puppets proposes such a resolution, nobody local cares and passes it just to shut the nutcase up. Then the AR group claims victory.
If Spain were really supportive of animal rights, don't you think they'd have done something about bullfighting?
AR's have taken this kind of approach in other areas. For instance in the USA the HSUS has gotten some small liberal arts colleges to sign a pledge not to support animal experimentation. None do any experimentation, so the pledge is meaningless, but again the AR's claim victory.
My apologies for misunderstanding your basis that humanity is secular and that people don't derive their value from a creator.
Wesley you've stated
December 22, 2006 I believe in a hierarchy of moral worth, with all humans at the top rung...
November 21, 2006I repeat: Eugenics is about creating hierarchies of human worth:
So you believe in a godless assertion of morals that define humans as greater than any other species, but then draw the line and say intra species value can not be determined based on intelligence, capability ect...
seems like a flawed argument to me.
John: I don't do souls. Above my paygrade.
Padraig: You nailed it: The strategy is to find the weak animal in the herd and take it out. They went after pig farming methods in Florida, for example, when there were hardly any in the entire state. Then, having created a constitutional right in Florida and won a point of principle, they move on to other jurisdictions strengthened. Plus, great for fund raising.
I think you meant to direct the "souls" comment to Rich. What did you think of my idea for a definition of what makes us unique and worthy of special status? If we base it on being children of humans and parents of humans, rather than trying to find some quality or claim, it becomes easy. Of course our children should have full human rights, because they are our children. We get our rights from our parents demanding them for us. And that we all would have to pair with another human to have our own children extends the rights horizontally to other people we can mate with.
That's why we have to keep us created naturally, from two humans, or the claim will be lost and we'll have to look for qualities or features to make us unique.
Sorry I'm so late to answer your question about Mary Midgley and Christine Korsgaard. You can probably get a good sense of MM's views by paging through the Google Books preview of Animals and Why They Matter. Though your views diverge from hers, I think you'd get a kick out of her response to the Dawkins-y capital-S-in-Science mode of moral theorizing... so if you have a free slot in your to-read list, I'd recommend this book!
Christine Korsgaard gave a talk in April 2007 called "Facing the Animal You See in the Mirror," in which she interrogates the intuitions behind human exceptionalism. You can download the PDF from here. It's a quick read!
I took a quick look at Korsgaard. Does she realize that in obtaining farm produce milliosn of animals are killed? These field animals feel pain, just like food animals. Rats are killed in an excrutiating manner in silos so they won't eat the corn.
Unless you grow your own organic garden, you almost literally cannot live without killing animals, either as food, or as "collatoral damage" in the growing and storing of mass crops.
I can't tell you whether Korsgaard is aware of those farming practices, but she gets close to answering your underlying question in the last three pages of her talk. She writes:
"Cruelty to animals is built into the fabric of our lives in ways that make it hard to avoid." (p. 9)
"I think it is important to keep these facts in mind, and to admit that it is genuinely difficult to avoid harming the other animals. We shouldn’t be too hard on
ourselves, or each other; each of us has to find his or her own way to negotiate these difficult issues. But I don’t think the fact that it is so hard to treat the other animals rightly is a reason not to try to do much better than we do. And some of the ways we can do better are easy." (p. 10)
If you get a chance, I'd be interested to hear your response to Korsgaard's brand of human exceptionalism. Does it seem philosophically coherent to you?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home