The rest can be found at the International Business Times.
Instead of trying to create more appropriate and dedicated laws for animal protection, they're trying to make human laws apply to animals too... Interesting.
Activists Want Chimp Declared a 'Person'
- Thread starter Farid
- Start date
Instead of trying to create more appropriate and dedicated laws for animal protection, they're trying to make human laws apply to animals too... Interesting.
Rainbow Man
Veteran
People like these - although they probably mean well - make a mockery of all of animal rights with ridiculous nonsense scuh a s this.
Surely they ought to understand that themselves that they'll just be setting themselves and everybody associated with them up as targets by people that do no tcare for animal health and safety.
Peace.
Surely they ought to understand that themselves that they'll just be setting themselves and everybody associated with them up as targets by people that do no tcare for animal health and safety.
Peace.
I think dolphins should get it before chimps. 
I absolutely believe they should have this....
"'We mean the right to life, the right to not be tortured, the right to freedom under certain conditions,"'
If applying human rights to them rather than creating a whole new system is the fastest/easiest/most likely to succeed then they have my support.
As they say:
"'We're not talking about the right to vote here."'
They aren't some crazy loones trying to say animals and humans should have all the same rights, they are merely saying that animals, especially ones that are very close to us on the intelligence scale should be treated with some level of decency. Can anyone seriously say thats a bad thing?
"'We mean the right to life, the right to not be tortured, the right to freedom under certain conditions,"'
If applying human rights to them rather than creating a whole new system is the fastest/easiest/most likely to succeed then they have my support.
As they say:
"'We're not talking about the right to vote here."'
They aren't some crazy loones trying to say animals and humans should have all the same rights, they are merely saying that animals, especially ones that are very close to us on the intelligence scale should be treated with some level of decency. Can anyone seriously say thats a bad thing?
Yes, because that isn't their end goal.
Quick someone contact Austria and tell them to donate the money a person willing to care for the chimps before they starve.
"Their food and veterinary bills run about $6,800 a month. Donors have offered to help, but there's a catch: Under Austrian law, only a person can receive personal donations."
"Their food and veterinary bills run about $6,800 a month. Donors have offered to help, but there's a catch: Under Austrian law, only a person can receive personal donations."
They're just being stupid. They don't want the money to be donated to an organisation or a person to take care of the chimps. They want the money to go to the chimps itself, i.e. a personal donation to the chimps.
My remark was tongue and cheek. The need to establish "person-hood" is merely a red herring to advance animal rights. There are so many ways to overcome the current 'limitation', no direct funding, that suggesting there is a pressing 'need' is laughable.
Rainbow Man
Veteran
It's just daft and unneccessary to have the damn chimp declared a person so it can receive donations because someone's going to have to take care of it anyway.
It's not as if it can go to the supermarket on its own and shop for bananas with its own fully loaded credit card now is it.
So the caretaker works for an organization which receives the donated money. Where's the problem here?
Peace.
It's not as if it can go to the supermarket on its own and shop for bananas with its own fully loaded credit card now is it.
So the caretaker works for an organization which receives the donated money. Where's the problem here?
Peace.
Human rights for chimps make no sense because human responsibilities make no sense for chimps. Sure we can assign them certain rights (no torture, unnecessary cruelty, etc), but I'd argue that those should be basic rights for all living beings, not just humans.
Trying to classify them as "people" is insane though. Should they pay taxes? Own property? Go to jail when they commit a crime? There are very few aspects of "person-hood" that actually apply to them. It would make a lot more sense to come up with a set of rights for animals in general and perhaps give chimps additional rights if merited.
Nite_Hawk
Trying to classify them as "people" is insane though. Should they pay taxes? Own property? Go to jail when they commit a crime? There are very few aspects of "person-hood" that actually apply to them. It would make a lot more sense to come up with a set of rights for animals in general and perhaps give chimps additional rights if merited.
Nite_Hawk
EasyRaider
Regular
Human rights for children make no sense because full human responsibilities make no sense for children. Sure we can assign them certain rights (no torture, unnecessary cruelty, etc), but I'd argue that those should be basic rights for all living beings.
Trying to classify them as "people" is insane though. Should they pay taxes? Own property? Go to jail when they commit a crime? There are very few aspects of "person-hood" that actually apply to them. It would make a lot more sense to come up with a set of rights for animals in general and perhaps give human children additional rights if merited.
Trying to classify them as "people" is insane though. Should they pay taxes? Own property? Go to jail when they commit a crime? There are very few aspects of "person-hood" that actually apply to them. It would make a lot more sense to come up with a set of rights for animals in general and perhaps give human children additional rights if merited.
Oh I see... You've taken the words that I said, and changed the word "chimps" to the word "children". And by doing so, you've demonstrated that "children" have restricted rights. But wait, they are still people after all! Ho ho, what a clever thing you've done!
You could have come up with a defensible reason for why chimps should be classified as people, but you, no... you've decided to make a different point. You've shown us all that if we are going to continue claiming children are people even though they don't have full human rights, then we are asked, nay, compelled to claim chimps are people because... you guessed it, they don't have full human rights or responsibilities either!
Great post, you've added so much to the conversation.
Nite_Hawk
EasyRaider
Regular
No, I merely demonstrated that your arguments can be equally applied towards the status of children as persons and their rights.
Um, no. I'm not trying to get chimps passed as people in the usual sense of the word. I simply believe they should enjoy the same rights as human children, where applicable.
Thank you.
Human children are already part of a species that qualifies as "people". Generally humans are capable of understanding morals, laws, and higher reasoning, so we include them. Children, the mentally ill, and others may not individually appear to meet the criteria (though some do!). Since humans as species meet the criteria we generally do not strip specific individuals within the human race of their person-hood. Still, as you've demonstrated we do in fact restrict some people's rights and responsibilities. Children do not generally go to jail if they commit a crime and they do not generally pay taxes.
Chimps on the other hand as a species do not meet the criteria for person-hood. We have not been able to find a single chimp that can understand morals, laws, and higher reasoning. If even one chimp was capable of demonstrating these things it would make a lot more sense to consider it, but since none exist there is no point to claiming they are people. Still, chimps are generally more intelligent than say, fresh water bass. Certain rights may apply to chimps that don't apply to other species. Still, there are many rights that human children have that I believe chimps should definitely not have.
Nite_Hawk
I was curious about children's rights after the last couple of posts, and found a very interesting text at stanford's website:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-children/
It's quite dense, but there are some interesting ideas and theories floated about. I don't necessarily agree with everything said, but here's an interesting quote:
Nite_Hawk
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-children/
It's quite dense, but there are some interesting ideas and theories floated about. I don't necessarily agree with everything said, but here's an interesting quote:
Edit: Expanding on this, I would maintain that children do indeed have a right to life. Primarily that there is a moral obligation to stop a child from being killed (whether by humans, animals, or nature). On the other hand, I do not believe that animals, including chimps, have the same right to life. Humans do not have a moral obligation to stop two chimps from killing each other.
Nite_Hawk
Last edited by a moderator:
They want to declare a chimp as a person? I would declare those people as chimps instead.
What a stupidity!
EasyRaider
Regular
Doing that would be very problematic indeed. Still, an adult chimp is typically closer than a baby human to qualifying as a person. I don't think which species an individual belongs to should count at all. That would be like racism, only on another level. Unfortunately, it's a necessary generalization in order to make practical laws.
EasyRaider
Regular
Why not? It's obvious for most species, but when it comes to dolphins and the great apes, the line is no longer so clear.
We do not have a moral obligation to stop two humans from killing each other, either, especially if there is a clear risk to our own life. Most people would in most cases feel compelled to, yes, but I see no obligation.
