Speciesism-lite and arbitrary enforcement of rights
by MikeGene
Spain’s Parliament has voiced its support “for the rights of great apes to life and freedom.” Yet this bold and historical decision to extend human rights to apes is plagued with arbitrary thinking.
First, consider the point that William Saletan makes:
George Orwell wrote the cruel finale to this tale 63 years ago in Animal Farm: "All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others." That wasn't how the egalitarian uprising in the book was supposed to turn out. It wasn't how the animal rights movement was supposed to turn out, either.
So why are apes more equal than other mammals? Why do apes have rights, but not the rhesus monkey or dog?
Saletan explains:
GAP is scientifically honest. And science doesn't show mental parity between great apes and human adults. What it shows, as the group's president acknowledges, is that great apes "experience an emotional and intellectual conscience similar to that of human children." Accordingly, the Spanish proposal doesn't treat apes like you or me. It treats them like "humans of limited capacity, such as children or those who are mentally incompetent and are afforded guardians or caretakers to represent their interests."
In other words, the apes deserve rights because they are most similar to us. While it is arbitrary to reserve rights for the human species, it is not arbitrary to extend rights to those creatures who are most like the children of the human species.
Please – this is speciesism-lite, pure and simple.
It’s not just an issue of the Great Apes Project and Spain arbitrarily promoting speciesism, but note the arbitrary elements of the implementation of these new rights:
The new resolutions have cross-party or majority support. They are expected to become law and the Government is now committed to update the statute book within a year to outlaw harmful experiments on apes in Spain.
"We have no knowledge of great apes being used in experiments in Spain, but there is currently no law preventing that from happening," Mr Pozas said.
Keeping apes for circuses, television commercials or filming will also be forbidden, with breaking the new laws an offence under Spain's penal code.
Keeping an estimated 315 apes in Spanish zoos will not be illegal, but supporters of the Bill say conditions will need to improve drastically in 70 per cent of establishments to comply with the new law.
Okay, so scientific research involving apes is now illegal, as is the use of apes in circuses and filming. But zoos? Why, those are legal. Clearly, the apes have no right to freedom as humans have the right to lock them up in cages and pens so money can be made displaying them. Apparently, as long as you provide the apes with a nice cage, no ape rights are being violated.
Spain needs to follow through and actually show they truly value the rights of apes instead of justifying this continued violation of their rights.
But how? If they euthanize the apes in the zoos, they will have violated the ape’s right to life. But certainly this is no excuse for continuing to violate the ape’s right to freedom. So here’s what Spain is morally obligated to do:
1. Make it illegel to bring any new apes into Spain.
2. Make it illegal to breed the remaining apes that are in Spain.
Eventually, the apes will die naturally and Spain will cease violating ape rights with its zoos.
When that time comes, it will be very easy for Spain to observe the rights of apes as there will no apes in Spain.
July 2nd, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Those apes are lucky they don't taste good or they would have gotten nothing!
I have always found it odd though that many Christians seem to be upset by extending our sphere of moral concern to include some animals. Wasn't Jesus all about extending our moral concern to include everyone? Isn't extending moral concern to other sentient animals the next logical step? I think this legislation is a bit silly and very arbitrary, but I think the idea of extending our sphere of moral concern is noble.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — July 2, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Todd,
Don't reference all Christians with that comment.
I've always considered myself an animal lover. And have put myself into harm's way numerous time to protect animals. Whether it was knocking the teeth out of some kid's mouth (I was a kid too) when they were attempting to place baseball with a kitten (the kitten was the ball) or rumbling with a kid's dad (I was in high school) when a dad and son where trying to hit a mom and her ducklings with rocks…. or standing in front of on coming traffic when a goose and her little ones were trying to cross a busy road (last week).
Love animals and I'll never stop trying to prevent their abuse.
Comment by Doug — July 2, 2008 @ 5:19 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Hi Todd,
I’m sure most people don’t have a problem with extending our sphere of moral concern to include some animals when it comes to humane and compassionate treatment. I've always treated my animals with love. But the issue here is rights. Since this legislation is plagued by arbitrary thinking, are we to likewise conclude that rights are arbitrary? Apes have a right to life, but not monkeys or dogs? Apes are supposed to have a right to freedom, yet it remains legal to keep them in zoos? I guess when when you have the power to invent rights, you also have the power to ignore them or take them away.
SPAIN'S Parliament voiced its support today for the rights of great apes to life and freedom – apparently the first time any national legislature has called for such rights for non-humans….. Keeping an estimated 315 apes in Spanish zoos will not be illegal.
Comment by MikeGene — July 2, 2008 @ 5:25 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:32 pm
So? Only giving humans rights is also speciesism. You know humans are a species, right?
Wikipedia:
So assigning members of the human species some rights and members of all other species no rights also qualifies.
Comment by steve — July 2, 2008 @ 10:32 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Hi Steve,
That’s the point –it’s all speciesism. That the GAP is just another expression of speciesism helps us see the speciesism accusation as vacuous rhetoric.
Comment by MikeGene — July 2, 2008 @ 10:55 pm
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Oh, I dunno. I don't eat mammals at all because they're "too close" on the food chain. Don't eat much else on the animal end of the kingdom tree either (though I've a big weakness for fresh trout in grill-season). Pets in my house have run the gambit from horse to goat to many dogs and cats, to rabbits (Alice was box-trained!), frogs, snakes, fish and (for a time) a tarantula named Gonzo.
I think most life deserves a 'right' to be who and what they are, so long as they're not a threat to us. We're the only ones who can do anything about things like that, so we earned the right to choose. Mosquitoes could disappear tomorrow and no one would miss them. Ticks too, and those nasty no-see-ums and chiggers and…
Yeah. I'm a speciesist. We're king of the hill right now. I can see a whole world of wonderous biodiversity out there that could use our respect, tolerance and mercy.
Comment by Joy — July 2, 2008 @ 11:27 pm
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:35 am
Great publicity, I suppose. How enlightened they are.
Does this mean the Spanish will stop torturing bulls?
Comment by nobody — July 3, 2008 @ 2:35 am
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:24 pm
In a related development somewhere in East Africa, a parliament of apes has endorsed the rights of Spanish legislators, but by a bare majority and strictly down party lines. (An ape-commentator explained the close vote by the rampant specism amongst great apes.) The ape parliamentarians also voted to ban the importation and breeding of Spanish legislators, a measure now before the EU.
Comment by Rock — July 3, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
July 7th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
The notion of animals having rights is silly. Government is (or should be) based on consent of the governed. The Constitution of the United States was established by We the People forming a compact with each other. No ape has the intellectual capacity to grant its consent to government and form a compact with others in which it recognizes and respects their rights. A bright line between us and other primates exists since no species in the gray area which might have had that intellectual capacity, such as Neanderthals, survived to the present day. This point doesn't justify denying rights to people of limited intellectual capacity, since all of us, and our loved ones, have such periods in our lives, thus it is in our own interest to extend human rights to children, the mentally disable, and others with diminished capacity. We treat other animals humanely because it is in our own best interest as moral agents to do so, not because they have any innate right to humane treatment.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 7, 2008 @ 12:15 pm
July 7th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Aagcobb:
??? I think I see your point per duly chartered human government, and maybe even quasi-governmental functionaries (like the UN). Yet there most certainly *is* a widespread conception of innate rights championed by a good many in and out of government/quasi-government. We call them "Human Rights," and while not all that popular with our own chartered government these days of gross violations of both the International Charter of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention, the concept is still valid.
So while we breed billions of animals for no other purpose than to slaughter and eat them, we do have laws on the books to enact punishments against people who treat their farm animals or pets cruelly just because they like to be cruel (or there's a profit in it). Animals may not have an intellectual concept of innate rights or any particular reason to treat any other critter "humanely," we humans *do*, we apply it to each other, and it has just as much legal standing as laws against theft, fraud, murder, etc., etc.
Animals have rights because we gave the right to ourselves to give rights to them - and we did. We can't regulate their treatment of each other, but we can regulate our treatment of them. So we do.
Comment by Joy — July 7, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
July 7th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Aagcobb, what is a legal definition for the term "rights?"
Comment by Bradford — July 7, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
July 7th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Bradford:
On a quick search I garnered this from lectlaw and this from Answers.com. Answers wants to describe in purely human terms, but with a bit of a inclusion it would work as well for any and all rights we legally extend to those who aren't fully intellectually functioning adult human beings.
I particularly like:
"The legal and moral rights [] recognized by national and international laws."
Laws are codified rules and regulations of interpersonal (and inter-corporate) relations - a codified 'morality' of a sort. Always have been. But it's only since WW-II that the idea has been generally recognized, and that hasn't stopped violations. The Mosaic laws did recognize a certain equality before the law, but such codes have mostly been applied in-group. Universality of human rights is a new development, and there is as yet no such thing as universality of rights to all life forms. I doubt there ever will be, since I believe it's my karmic duty to 'liberate' all blood-sucking and eight-legged life forms that want to claim my house or body as their own. Maybe they can come back as a cute squirrel next time.
Still, 'rights' are a human conception, human-encoded versions of human morality, just like the laws that establish such esoteric notions as 'rights'. We can extend them however we like.
Comment by Joy — July 7, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
July 7th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Joy,
Thomas Jefferson might disagree….
Comment by chunkdz — July 7, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
July 7th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Thanks for that Joy. If rights are attributable to an underlying morality, expressed through a legal system, then the nature of the underlying morality is of crucial consequence. What is it and who determines it? Is it the result of popular consensus or fiat imposed by authoritarian figures? Popular consensus might play a large role in our (USA) national view of what rights are but popular consensus is virtually impossible on an international level. There are too many cultures with opposing views and most people live in countries ruled without regard to representative government. That aside it is my personal view that animals should be legally protected from abuse. Cruelty to animals is evil but I'm reluctant to use the word right because it looks like a show stopper. Rights brook no arguments which is OK if the right is self-evident, as we tend to think of free speech for example. But what happens if research on rats is viewed as inherently cruel and therefore a violation of their rights? We need to tread carefully when the term rights is used.
Comment by Bradford — July 7, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
July 7th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Silly comment for a lawyer to make, sheesh.
Is that a real JD degree on yer wall, Aagcobb? 
Comment by Jean — July 7, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
July 7th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Does a gazelle have a right to live?
Does a lion have the right to eat a gazelle?
No matter what anyone says about rights and morality, doesn't it necessarily boil down to a Might Makes Right world, unless some higher power intervenes?
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 7, 2008 @ 8:53 pm
July 7th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Bradford:
The 'nature' of the underlying morality, it seems to me, is that people love to encode their moral precepts into law. The better to impress others with how magnanimous their moral sensibilities are, or the better to impose their moral strictures on everyone who isn't them. Or, that's pretty much how it's worked for as long as humans have been spouting morality and making laws, which is almost as long as humans have existed.
Who determines it? Whoever's in charge. Oh… and their lawyers.
kornbelt:
A live gazelle is alive until it's not alive anymore. At which point it is a dead gazelle (or dinner for a lion, or recycled matter). A lion eats the gazelle because that's what lions eat. Lots of humans eat cows who never hurt them one bit (and whom they never met while alive). Is that a 'right' or just some good eating humans have created a whole huge industry around? The only 'right' a cow has is not to be purposefully abused (purposeful killing apparently doesn't qualify as abuse). And that's ignored with impunity all the time.
We call 'em 'rights' for animals, but animals have no 'rights' - that's a purely human concept - formalized, encoded and enforced (or ignored) by humans. No cow ever filed a criminal complaint down at the precinct station. No cow ever will.
Of course it boils down to Might Makes Right, and we humans get to define every one of those three words to suit whatever purposes we intelligently design. We *ARE* the "higher power." If we aren't the higher power you're alluding to, then you're just shifting the fulcrum of power to something other than humans. Unless God goes back to tossing lightning bolts with impunity at evildoers, God can't enforce anything.
If you ever get busted, it'll be by a man with a badge, then you'll get to deal with all the nooks and crannies of a judicial system full of badges, robes, uniforms, Armani suits, clever restraining hardware and a jury of your erstwhile peers. God probably won't be testifying in the dock.
Comment by Joy — July 7, 2008 @ 9:33 pm
July 7th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Not necessarily God in the classical sense. Maybe some aliens will put a stop to flesh eating one day. I would assume aliens would have more power than us, to enforce their will. (If they do, I sure hope they stay away until after I'm dead.)
Comment by kornbelt888 — July 7, 2008 @ 9:58 pm
July 7th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Count on human technology to accomplish that, or at least make moves in such a direction. There's already quite a lot of effort being put into everything from more convincing meat-substitutes (I prefer Morningstar Farm chicken patties to the real thing. There's no substitute for foie gras, though) to vat-grown cloned meats. Yes, sounds tasty, doesn't it? But I'm willing to bet people would happily accept it as a substitute, if it had the same taste and was cost-efficient.
I'm fine with conferring certain rights on animals, though 'human rights' are for humans. Calling it anything else is just one more attempt to drill in the idea that humans are just one more animal - in the hopes that we can act like and be treated as such, I suppose.
Comment by nullasalus — July 7, 2008 @ 11:54 pm
July 8th, 2008 at 12:57 am
Nullasalus said:
Which is exactly the reason behind the charges of "speciesism" - otherwise a mere law, not a conferral of alleged 'rights", would have sufficed to accomplish the ends.
Comment by Pez — July 8, 2008 @ 12:57 am
July 8th, 2008 at 3:16 am
Speciesism is awarding rights to an organism solely because it belongs to a species. "Human rights" would be an example of speciesism because no non-human organism has them.
The Spanish are looking at what properties humans have that make them worthy of "human rights" and seeing if any other animals also have them. They have decided that apes have some of those properties (a complex mental and social life and morality of a sort plus such properties as feeling pain and terror that all mammals share) and are subsequently awarding them certain "human rights" despite the fact that they are not members of the human species.
If the Spaniards were really and truly speciesists, none of that would matter. Apes are not members of the human species, so they would never get any of "our" rights.
I'm not sure what point William Saletan (http://www.slate.com/id/2194568/) is making beyond the rather obvious fact that not all animals are equal. People who think they are c. elegans may dispute this idea, of course. I'd like to see what you've got to say.
From the article:
From MikeGene:
No. It's poorly phrased, but what the article means by "like the children of the human species" is that they have some of the properties possessed by humans that result in us getting human rights. If it were speciesism, no non-human organism would ever have the rights enjoyed by the human species.
Comment by CeilingCat — July 8, 2008 @ 3:16 am
July 8th, 2008 at 4:46 am
Why, yes it is Jean. Now why don't you cite a case to me in which an animal brought an action in court to enforce its "rights"? The people have the right to criminalize certain conduct such as animal abuse, but no animal has any right it can enforce. At least not in the United States.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 8, 2008 @ 4:46 am
July 8th, 2008 at 7:22 am
Joy:
Sure he can he can make it hard for the offender to sleep at night. In the end a guilty conscience is the best enforcer of the rules. Just ask a well trained twelve year old.
If you want to enforce the rules and one of your charges has no conscience the thing is do to make all his peers feel guilty for not stopping him from breaking the rules.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — July 8, 2008 @ 7:22 am
July 8th, 2008 at 7:42 am
CeilingCat,
Where did that definition pop up from? I've not heard it before, and honestly, it sounds rather tailored.
See, there's a number of problems here. Central is that quiet shift in the concept of "human rights" from something a human innately has to something given to beings who possess certain human-like properties. If the question of human rights isn't one of humanity, but of properties, then just as there can be animals who have them in part, there can be humans who lack them in part. That's a trade-off received in an effort to avoid 'speciesism', and it's an inane move.
Actually, it's not to 'avoid speciesism' either, as near as I can tell. It's to drill into the public mind that humans are simply animals, and their standards should reflect as much.
Of course, there's also stuff like this - from the OP.
"This is a historic day in the struggle for animal rights and in defence of our evolutionary comrades, which will doubtless go down in the history of humanity," said Pedro Pozas, Spanish director of the Great Apes Project.
In the history of humanity. Not any other species' history, because they hardly understand the concept. And probably less because it's a grand day of moral advancement, but because the what's going on here is silly. It'll go down in history the way France's law against naming a pig Napoleon has gone down in history. Also - evolutionary comrades? Ha. No such thing.
Mind you, I'm not against special protections for animals, even when based on those animals having certain properties. But Spain can pass as many laws as they want, and the great apes aren't going to have human rights - they aren't going to have any rights at all, because they're not going to understand them. Just as, if Spain made certain acts illegal for apes and the apes engaged in them, you wouldn't have criminal apes, or law-breaking apes.
There's a serious gulf between all other animals and humans, and no amount of impressive tricks by animals or emotional attachment from humans will bridge it. Animals are largely, vastly at human mercy, and we have a duty to handle that responsibly. But try as we might, we can't confer the creatures rights. All we can do is set standards and responsibilities for ourselves with regards to them. If we really cared about them, that would be enough.
But, this isn't about the apes. Not even a little.
Comment by nullasalus — July 8, 2008 @ 7:42 am
July 8th, 2008 at 8:09 am
nullasalus:
Plenty of humans are incapable of understanding human rights. By your argument they aren't going to have any rights.
No? What is it about then?
Comment by Raevmo — July 8, 2008 @ 8:09 am
July 8th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Raevmo,
I didn't make an argument there, just an observation. I'd be entirely at home with the idea that humans have certain rights by virtue of their being human, period - I'm not going to quiver at being called a speciesist. I'm sure the squirrels will cope with my stance.
(And Peter Singer, backing this legal move, is the one who believes that infanticide is A-OK because an infant lacks certain properties. Is it better to promote speciesism or infanticide? I wonder if that debate is coming.)
Even there, though, I find the 'humans who don't understand their rights' bit to be unconvincing. It can only be due to knowledge, maturity, or ailment. Knowledge is easy to address. Maturity is murkier, since parental rights get involved too, but I think it's mostly addressed on the grounds of there being certain rights any person would definitely exercise if they were fully cognizant as they naturally could be. Ailment is similar, with the added issue of potential rehabilitation or otherwise.
I don't think a great ape's inability to understand their rights could reasonably be called an ailment. Maturity doesn't matter either in their case. Knowledge is a non-issue as well, since all indications are that they're unable to acquire it due to natural limitations.
They'll just have to settle for protections afforded to them by humans. And some very nice prisons. Er, zoos.
I'm sure you can figure it out. You're human. Or so I assume.
Whoops, there's my speciesism showing again.
Comment by nullasalus — July 8, 2008 @ 8:45 am
July 8th, 2008 at 9:00 am
By the way - one thing I find amusing about the Great Ape Project and similar initiatives: So much of the effort is due to a desire to protect animals from… well, scientists. I'm not sure circuses or even poachers are capable of approaching what's been done to primates in the name of scientific research.
Why, it's almost as if the advancement of scientific knowledge isn't a goal that excuses all limitations - and that maybe arguing for certain limitations, or even banning some types of experiments due to moral concern, isn't 'anti-science' so much as morally sensible.
Comment by nullasalus — July 8, 2008 @ 9:00 am
July 8th, 2008 at 9:35 am
fmm:
We (humans, particularly humans-in-training) do like to think it's God pricking our conscience, provided we've some formalized and imbued conception of God. But that's not universal in just our species, since there are a couple of billion humans at least who would attribute the guilt to the "Law of Karma" - what goes around comes around.
Then there are humans who have no conscience. I once 'met' a cyberpseud who talked often of her twin sons. Both certifiably 'above average' in intelligence, but one was entirely lacking the empathic sense. A form of autism-like condition, it simply wasn't there. She described the challenges of trying to instill in him some reasons NOT to behave as his impulses would dictate (she was quite concerned that he'd kill someone someday, he was already quite adept at killing animals for no apparent reason and his twin brother was terrified of him).
She didn't want to lock him up, but was afraid that might be his inevitable fate - the only question being whether she'd do it in recognition of his problem before he killed anybody, or the state would do it after he killed someone.
Does he have an innate human right to remain free until he kills someone or does some other deed deserving of incarceration? Does his mother have a responsibility to recognize the threat to others he represents and lock him up to protect others? How about his doctor… does HE have that responsibility?
In that discussion group I also learned that Mom was raising the boys in her chosen belief system, Buddhism. I've no problem with Buddhism or Buddhists, the philosophy is admirable if you can get over the state of abject denial involved. But it sure seemed to me that if I had to deal with a kid (that I AM responsible for) who had no capacity for empathy and was smart enough to be dangerous, I'd be teaching him the very strict rule of consequences as reason not to act out his aggressive emotions.
Like any other less-than human dangerous animal, simple reward and punishment. Which many would see as cruel to the child (who CAN feel his own pain, just not empathize with anybody else's). If he's all about himself, he can be taught how to gain rewards by behaving well, and how to avoid pain by NOT causing pain to others.
He is a human of diminished capacity with a recognized right not to be euthanized (at this point in time). But what other rights does he actually have, given his condition? Extend that a bit and ask what rights any of us actually have that we don't collectively grant ourselves.
The concept of 'rights' is an ought, a moral precept formalized. The concept does not and can not prevent us from suffering any of the consequences of life in reality, including pain, grief, anguish and death. Even the most perfect of us (in a rule-abiding sense) suffers all these things. No matter what the law says.
Comment by Joy — July 8, 2008 @ 9:35 am
July 8th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Joy,
To answer your question, in the U.S. generally you can get someone committed if they are a threat to themselves or others and could benefit from treatment. But you can't just lock someone up indefinitely for crimes you think they may commit. If she tries to imprison him in the house herself, she's likely to end up in prison for child abuse. Best thing she can do is get him the best mental health treatment she can, hope for the best, and pray.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 8, 2008 @ 10:37 am
July 8th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Aagcobb:
Pray? Huh. I've never found that particularly useful in controlling anyone else's behavior, but perhaps your experience is different. I thought this was a particularly interesting conundrum for exploration, just given the stark contrast between these twins - who were, if I recall, about 8 when the discussion occurred.
Autistic children do have treatment facilities these days, especially since the diagnosis of autism is spiraling out of control and it can't be "cured" (or just made tolerable) by Ritalin. If the disability to function in the real world is serious enough, placing the child in a permanent live-in facility is the same option parents have for severely disabled children with other syndromes. As I said, this boy was reportedly cruel and deadly to animals, and not just pulling the wings off flies. Had his Mom not been Buddhist, I expect she might have considered him the "Evil Twin."
Yes, we recognize that this 'evil' is physical in cause and nature. But by that recognition we still don't have a right to summarily execute or incarcerate unless he's done something to deserve it (and got caught). I don't think his Mom ever reported him for killing kittens or puppies, and even if she had he'd only have been in the juvenile system - they'd have ordered 'treatment' and she was already getting him that. It just wasn't working.
Which is why I suggested straight reward-punishment. He was smart enough to know cause-effect, and sensitive enough to his own pain to be trainable. But how awful would it be to be a parent, the kid grows up and starts a life of increasingly horrendous criminality (and DOESN'T get caught), and you know in your heart that serial killer might be related to you.
Ignoring the law, which says punishment cannot be imposed unless you get caught for something punishable, what is the mother's moral responsibility to the wider society? What's the doctor's moral responsibility? Would it be considered child abuse to put, say, a shock-collar on the kid and push the button whenever he does something evil? If so, does the law prevent the Mom or doctor from identifying the threat and acting prior to his murder spree?
I ask because I've never bought the whole "he was a loner" or "he was so nice!" garbage family and neighbors always spew whenever a mass murderer gets caught some years down the line and after a lot of innocent people have had their supposed 'rights' violated in the most grotesque of ways. In this wannabe 'New Atheist' world of glorious rationalism, is there such a thing as being Born Evil?
Comment by Joy — July 8, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
July 9th, 2008 at 3:47 am
Yes. They are called children, adolescents (pre-16 no right to drive, pre-18 no right to vote, enter a contract or have sex in many jurisdictions, pre-21 no right to drink) convicted criminals, people judged insane, people who the President wants to lock up and torture, etc. Human rights have graduations.
Excuse me, I thought I was communicating with an animal. You write very well for a vegetable.
Ditto for young children, the insane and certain high ranking politicians. The ability to understand a right is not a requirement for having the right. In fact, how well do you understand your rights when you're unconscious? Not at all? Can we kill you in your sleep with impunity? Why not?
And when we put those standards and responsibilities into the law, they become rights.
Did you see the movie, "E.T."? Or better yet, "WALL-E"? Do you think it would be okay to dissect E.T.? He's certainly not human and therefore under speciesism he would have no "human rights". And what about WALL-E? He isn't even an animal! In fact, he's not even a vegetable, he's a mineral for crying out loud. Would it be all right for us to torture or destroy those two non-humans with impunity? If not, what properties do they have that should forbid us to kill or torture them?
Comment by CeilingCat — July 9, 2008 @ 3:47 am
July 9th, 2008 at 5:47 am
CeilingCat,
Scroll over to my reply to Raevmo - this largely falls under the cases of people who lack knowledge, lack maturity, or are suffering an impairment. I'd disagree that human rights in the case you list have graduations - some rights trump others, perhaps. I could meddle with specifics here (driving is a right?), but I'm content to put that aside for now.
"An animal", not a human? Or would that be speciesist?
Humans aren't mere animals - we're in a different class altogether, even with common descent and biological history recognized. As I said, I'll happily take on the speciesist label. Only humans will care about my views.
Again, answered with regards to Raevmo. Another again: Peter Singer, one of the backers of the GAP, believes you can snuff out an infant precisely because they, at that moment, lack cognitive abilities comparable to other animals. You're really going to plead a "think of the children!" case in my direction with the ultimate utilitarian on your side on this issue?
Alright to dissect? I said outright that my objection to these laws has less to do with what they are forbidding / what they are protecting, and more to do with how they are presented. I don't think people should be allowed to take a dump on the Statue of Liberty either - I don't think we need to confer rights to said statue.
If your concern here is convincing me of the need to protect the great apes, you'd be surprised at how willing I am to agree. If you want to base some of that justification on their distinctness from certain animals, again, I could play ball there to a degree. Where we are parting ways is on whether apes are persons in the sense that humans are, or that whether "human rights" should be granted to them. There's a lot of cultural, philosophical, and other baggage in play - well beyond the material effects of the law itself - that lead me to oppose that. Say I'm focusing on the technicalities if you want, but I consider that important.
Incidentally, are you in favor of the right to privacy? If so, stop watching those people, will you?
Comment by nullasalus — July 9, 2008 @ 5:47 am
July 9th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Joy,
I'm going to say yes.
They certainly have the right to provide the child treatment, but once he reaches 18, if he hasn't committed any violent crimes, it would be difficult to keep him confined.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 9, 2008 @ 9:15 am
July 9th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Aagcobb:
I don't know whatever happened with this person, or even if the story is true (it is the inter-tubes, after all). But it did offer a rather unique scenario. On first telling, I had immediate imaginings of the good twin getting blamed and being punished for what the evil twin did, sort of a made-for-TV movie plot.
I have, however, encountered a few Natural Born Killers in my time who display a lot more than the average teenage impulse control problems. That's why it seems the strict reward-punishment approach is the best in that situation if the kid is indeed intelligent. It's been documented that a good many identified "sociopaths" have much better than average intelligence. If steered properly they usually end up as corporate middle management (the proverbial Evil Boss who really is evil) instead of serial killers.
Comment by Joy — July 9, 2008 @ 10:24 am
July 10th, 2008 at 6:36 am
Nullasalus: I read your reply to Raevmo. "…people who lack knowledge, lack maturity, or are suffering an impairment…" are lacking one or more of the properties that distinguish human beings and may have some of their human rights withheld because of that. The first two are normally rectified as they go through life, the imparments maybe not.
I hope you're not going to deny you're an animal because I would hate to see you going through life as a biscuit or a rock. As far as anatomy goes, humans have been shown to have every single organ that a chimp has and no extra organs they don't have. We're smarter than apes and have language and that's about it.
Peter Singer realizes that our mental lives are what really make us human He also realizes that if you have a severely damaged newborn that is not conscious and has never been conscious, then it is better to euthanize it instead of letting it grow up and acquire a conscious mind that will suffer greatly because of it. Some people think that's immoral and insist on letting the infant grow up into a suffering human being. They can never explain why their morals produce a suffering human being, which they apparently consider to be good, while Singer prevents that, which they think is sinful.
I'm glad to learn that you are willing to protect the great apes, but I wonder why. Do you think that "human rights" includes the full list of human rights, including the right to vote and therefore apes can never have "human rights"? Then you've missed the point. If you think that apes should be protected because they have some of the properties that make humans worth of protection, then you agree with the original article.
Comment by CeilingCat — July 10, 2008 @ 6:36 am
July 10th, 2008 at 6:39 am
Joy: "…he was already quite adept at killing animals for no apparent reason …"
That's a bright red danger signal with horns and bells attached to it. That kid will either wind up on death row or in politics.
Comment by CeilingCat — July 10, 2008 @ 6:39 am
July 10th, 2008 at 8:57 am
CeilingCat,
And my response is that denying them rights "because of that" is a tragic error. Now it's my turn to ask you - is it okay to deny you your rights when you're sleeping? Because being unconscious is a temporary lack of "one or more of the properties that distinguish human beings". I don't think it's proper when someone is asleep, nor when they're in a state of temporary (or possibly permanent - we can never be certain) impairment.
Why would that concern you? It would merely mean that I lack some of the properties that make up a human being, and apparently you'd be able to treat me without rights in response. It's not as if, according to what you're outlining here, there's a "person" here if I'm so impaired.
And the only difference between a Pez dispenser and a Playstation 3 is minimal. They're both largely made of plastic. They're arranged differently and the PS3 has some metal in it, and that's about it.
… Really, the gulf is wider than that by far. You can play the 'degree' game if you like, but it's not as if we only recently figured out that apes have a lot of physical similarities with humans. There's still a tremendous gulf between the two, and barring tinkering by humanity, always will be.
You are either lying, or are horribly misinformed. Singer's take on infanticide is not limited to "severely damaged newborns" - infants are not "persons", period. He doesn't take this stance under the guise of mercy to the infant. The infant's interests are a non-issue. It has none.
Further, you make it sound as if people who are against infanticide for impaired newborns are in favor of harming them. In fact, efforts have been made and continue to be made to help them - I regard any birth defect as a problem to be addressed through research, better knowledge, etc. I don't regard children with defects as themselves defective and needing to be snuffed.
No, I think "human rights" are for humans, and that it's both a joke and a socio-political farce to pretend such rights can be parceled out based on some inane property argument. Bananas don't deserve partial "human rights" just because they share X% of human DNA. Pigs don't deserve partial human rights just because they have organ and diet similarities with us and are apparently smarter than most dogs. If you can't think of a reason to protect the great apes other than "human rights" arguments, all I can say is you have a strange worldview.
Comment by nullasalus — July 10, 2008 @ 8:57 am
July 10th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Isn't Singer the one who suggests parents should have a year to decide if they really want their baby, and if not, can kill it?
Comment by Joy — July 10, 2008 @ 10:00 am
July 10th, 2008 at 10:46 am
This is a must read. Long, but worth it:
Comment by MikeGene — July 10, 2008 @ 10:46 am
July 10th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
nullasalus:
You mean humans have a "soul" and (other) animals don't, correct?
Comment by Raevmo — July 10, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
July 10th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Mike, that article took me through every emotion imaginable.
In the end, though, I was left empty. Both Singer and Johnson end up with mortal wounds to their logic - Singer, forced to concede that his raw utilitarianism justifies racism; and Johnson, that there is no rational reason to believe that she should not have been exterminated. Singer falls back on his prejudice, and Johnson falls back on some kind of Pollyannaish "faith in humanity".
Comment by chunkdz — July 10, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
July 10th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
I've never commented here before, but I just read the piece that Mike Gene linked to above and it is powerful. My favorite part was this section where Harriet speaks from the perspective of a severely disabled person;
"Are we "worse off"? I don't think so. Not in any meaningful sense. There are too many variables. For those of us with congenital conditions, disability shapes all we are. Those disabled later in life adapt. We take constraints that no one would choose and build rich and satisfying lives within them. We enjoy pleasures other people enjoy, and pleasures peculiarly our own. We have something the world needs."
I agree with her that disabled persons contribute something the world needs desperately, something that makes humans unique, something that involves the human heart, something I hope we never lose.
Comment by interested bystander — July 10, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
July 10th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Raevmo,
Are you honestly telling me you're unable to think of what could constitute a vast gulf between apes and humans without reference to theological soul? Nothing in the intellect, the natural language and thought capabilities, the culture, the breadth and depth of abstract concept use, the development, the natural potential - none of this stands out to you?
So - no, incorrect. I don't need to set foot in theology (where the specifics of the soul is the subject of debate, rather than the stuff of utter defined certainty, at least in my faith) to make this observation. Theology certainly lends some justification to my desire to see apes (and other animals as well) treated with kindness and consideration, though, if you're really curious.
Comment by nullasalus — July 10, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
July 10th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
An interesting article. It's kind of odd that Johnson wants so much to avoid pointing out how slippery the slope Singer would lead everyone down really is.
She alludes to it with the mixed race "unadoptable" babies, but refuses to acknowledge forcefully that eugenics right here in the US did in fact get applied to orphans - and not just the colorful ones. It's easy for people to accept arguments that those who must rely on other people in order to live should not live. That's the whole of Singer's argument for infanticide. All human infants are dependent. They stay dependent for the better part of two decades.
Johnson's conclusion is weirdly weak, providing exactly zero effective counterpoint to Singer's narcissistic 'morality'…
Perhaps it's a side effect of atheism that even a notable disability rights advocate who is herself disabled can't manage a real argument to the intrinsic value of human life against a 'rationalist morality' in which value doesn't exist. I get the uneasy feeling that in a pinch, Johnson might concede that her "well lived" life is a sham because where there is no value there can be no rights.
Comment by Joy — July 10, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
July 11th, 2008 at 1:58 am
Joy says:
Hi Joy,
Yes. That's my recollection of his insane position. That says everything you need to know about the man.
Comment by nobody — July 11, 2008 @ 1:58 am
July 11th, 2008 at 6:40 am
Nullasalas: “And my response is that denying them rights "because of that" is a tragic error.”
Really? Is it a tragic error to deny a child the right to vote? How about the right to fly an airliner? I don’t see anything wrong with denying certain rights if the person lacks necessary knowledge.
Nullasalas: “Now it's my turn to ask you - is it okay to deny you your rights when you're sleeping?”
Come on now, I asked you that exact same question on the 9th and the reasons for your answer. My answer to my question is “No.” I’ll be happy to give you my reasons why, but I’d like to hear yours first since I asked you first.
Me: “I hope you're not going to deny you're an animal because I would hate to see you going through life as a biscuit or a rock.”
Nullasalus: “Why would that concern you? It would merely mean that I lack some of the properties that make up a human being, and apparently you'd be able to treat me without rights in response. It's not as if, according to what you're outlining here, there's a "person" here if I'm so impaired.”
If you were a biscuit or a rock, you would have none of the properties that make up a human being, or an amoeba for that matter and I’d treat you exactly like a biscuit or a rock. And you wouldn’t know or care.
Nullasalus: “And the only difference between a Pez dispenser and a Playstation 3 is minimal. They're both largely made of plastic. They're arranged differently and the PS3 has some metal in it, and that's about it.”
And I suppose you think the differences between an amoeba and a human are similarly minimal. The Playstation 3 has a few hundred megabits of information encoded inside it that the Pez dispenser lacks plus several million logic gates plus a video output section plus no Pez dispenser has ever put Sony in danger of bankruptcy.
As you say, there’s still a gulf between apes and humans – but we differ more in degree than in kind. Physically, we’re almost identical – same parts, different proportions. The biggest difference is that our brains are about twice as large, which lets us handle about 150 personal relationships instead of 10-15 for an ape, we are generally smarter, which is also probably due to the larger brain and we have language which opens up a whole new world of thought that is largely denied to apes.
See the “Defending Your Existence” thread for my thoughts on Peter Singer and the rather disgusting Harriet Johnson, who is apparently willfully ignorant and damn the damage she does to innocent people because of her ignorance.
Comment by CeilingCat — July 11, 2008 @ 6:40 am
July 11th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
CeilingCat,
There is no "right" to fly an airliner - you made this same mistake with cars.
And I explained why a temporary impairment is no bar to rights with Raevmo, again. If you have a problem with my answer, go ahead and name it. I have no problem answering.
You, however, are in a different situation. Remember - I'm entirely willing to grant someone rights based on their species alone, or on a knowledge of their natural development (even if said development may be delayed by maturity or impairment). But in defending Singer, you are advancing an argument where if a person even temporarily lacks certain 'properties', you can act as if they do not have them at all, and thus deny them rights across the board. An infant has no rights - it lacks the needed properties.
It wasn't a question of if I were a biscuit or a rock. It's if I thought I was - if I was an impaired human.
See, I can turn right around and tell you the difference between the Pez Dispenser and the PS3 is 'more degree than kind'. The PS3 has more information? Well, the PS3 has some - all we're talking about is amount. Oh, the PS3 is capable of communication? So is the Pez Dispenser - it clearly has trademark information stamped on it. Text is communication, it differs only in degree, not in kind.
It's like the old bit about how both frogs and birds can fly - birds can just stay in the air longer. A difference of the 'degree' between humans and ape is so vast that it's the stuff of kind. You can try and fast talk your way past that, but it inevitably ends up looking like the 'Pez v PS3' or any number of degree arguments.
Incidentally - I said from the start that this legal move had little to do with apes. It's anecdotal, but I really find it interesting that the argument quickly moved from 'apes need protections' to 'well, they have to be protections that are human rights, apes need to be recognized as persons and humans need to sometimes be recognized as not persons, it's not enough just to protect the apes'.
Damage she does to innocent people? Says the defender of Singer? Ahh, black comedy.
Comment by nullasalus — July 11, 2008 @ 2:28 pm