Certainly. And that in some cases we should be prepared to look for a very different kind of sapience to our own; we can’t in all cases assume that what we would look for in a human to see sapience will also be an indicator in other animals. But we do need, at least in part, to anthropomorphise animals in order to make any judgement - we need to compare and contrast on metrics we already understand.
Personally I’m much more worried about giving personhood to corporations than to apes…
For someone to have rights, they must have corresponding responsibilities (absent disability) such as obeying the law and protecting and respecting the rights of others. Apes can’t assume those responsibilities, so cannot be given rights.
I don’t think it is unreasonable to let the great apes live their lives in peace. I think the so-called “nutjobs,” I take that to mean anyone that doesn’t think as you do, will continue to promote and win some of their goals.
The progression of this world has been to grant more rights to those that have been denied them. I think this progression is sound and will continue. Animals have rights, or should have them. We humans don’t need the flesh, bone, and pelts of animals anymore to survive. We don’t need to torture them with horrible experiments either. They were here first.
Speak for yourself. I’m not going to become a vegan because someone wants a chicken/cow/pig to have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If said animal expressed its own desire for rights or could show it understands these rights I’ll change my position.
Also regarding these “horrible experiments” While I do not feel we should be unneccessarily cruel I belive many of these have benifited the health and well being of people, who are far more important than animals.
Why do I say that?
Becuase I’m a human being and as such can understand and consider such things as our place on the planet the effects we have on our surroundings and on others. Animals can not. I place the importance of my kind over that of animals because sometimes my species needs to use anmials in ways that can be a little nasty such as butchering for food or experimenting on them to test drugs and help to cure deseases.
Furthermore, for someone (or thing in this case) to have rights we have they also have to have the ability to also contribute and follow the laws we have. If an adult pig shits in the street does that mean it can be arrested, tried, convicted or fined? If are answer is no because they can not comprehend nor will they ever then we must assume they do not have the same rights.
What responsibilities do infants have? What rights?
And why is “absent disability” in parentheses? If someone breaks their leg, we don’t allow them to murder or to ignore their tax obligations. We only forgive responsibilities when a person’s disability renders them unable to assume those responsibilities.
Which is exactly the situation that an ape would be in.
Like it or not, we don’t live in a strict social contractarian system.
Daniel
Well, we humans have a lot to learn about animals, just because they do not speak doesn’t mean they don’t understand. Animals do understand death of their loved ones. I will not try to change your mind.
Why would a permanent, lifelong disability stopping someone from being able to assume those responsibilities still have them under your system?
They’re granted some basic human rights under the assumption that they will later be able to assume the responsibilities he is talking about, and they assume more rights as they age.
Apes lack some of the cognitive functions of humans. This is not a disability as commonly understood, which is a case where a population of humans lacks an ability that most people have. This is an ability that apes as a whole do not have, just like dogs are not able to walk on two legs - that doesn’t mean they’re disabled. It’s like saying all people have a disability because we can’t see ultraviolet light: it’s true we don’t have that ability, but that’s not how the category of disability is understood. Apes aren’t disabled; this is part of the definition of what an ape is.
So babies don’t have rights? 
Just as a slight nitpick, many dogs can in fact walk on two legs, albeit for a short period of time. But that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
For those who are opposed to the ideas of the Great Ape Project, I can’t help but wonder whether the sticking point is the unfortunate title of the Slate article, which mentions “animal equality”. From reading the Slate article, and from the information on the website for the Great Ape Project, it really doesn’t seem like any of the parties mentioned are seeking for apes to be considered equal to humans in any way, shape, or form.
From the Slate article:
So, they don’t want people to kill them, and they don’t want people to grab them out of their natural habitat and stick them in cages. That doesn’t really seem all that unreasonable.
From the GAP website:
Same as above, except adding “hey, we shouldn’t really be torturing them, either”. Again, not really very outlandish at all.
Discussion of whether apes have significant mental capacity is interesting, but somewhat tangential to the laws we are talking about. If they ever start discussing potential for apes to be granted a driver’s license, or trying to determine what their tax bracket should be, I will very readily speak out against it. But “don’t kill 'em, don’t capture 'em, don’t torture 'em” seems pretty fair to me.
I’m using ‘disability’ in the proper sense. Children, for instance, and the mentally retarted, still have rights but lesser or no responsibilities.
One might wonder why you’re posting at all if you’re not trying to change anyone’s mind and won’t back up your assertions.
Oy. You’re right, it has nothing to do with the discussion. Dogs generally can’t get around on two legs, and a human who could only stand up for as long as a dog can would be considered disabled. Dogs are still not disabled provided they can walk as a dog normally would.
But that isn’t so. They are given those rights because they are human. A baby with a mental disability that will never develop into a functioning adult does not have different rights than a normal baby.
The great apes are really a difficult case. On the one hand, of course, I think some individuals would use them as a case to broadly force the population to adopt vegetarianism and such, and I do not believe that’s fair. On the other hand, great apes are quite intelligent and can learn to communicate with us. I watched a documentary about Koko and the trainer (who admittedly is biased) tested her IQ to be between 75 and 90. A lot of humans fall into this range! If this is true by scientific consensus I think that it would be appropriate to consider other great apes a ‘special case’. If they are conscious thinking beings - admittedly not as smart as we - I think there is a case to be made for special rights for them. After all, we did not treat mentally challenged humans with the rights they have today until recently.
Humans ARE apes. Specifically, chimpanzees.
Sailboat
Oy. If there’s an upside to a hypothetical collapse of society, it’s that stupid movements like this will vanish as everyone focuses on survival. I won’t say it would be worth it, because it wouldn’t, but Jesus Christ some people have way too much time on their hands. Anthropomorphizing animals is one of the sillier side effects of a society that gives people too much leisure time.
I think giving those rights to all humans carries the assumption that the average human can handle it, even if some disabilities ensure that will never be the case for some.
That apes are similar to humans isn’t in dispute. The problem is, that’s part of what makes them suitable for some medical tests. Doesn’t that contradict the idea of giving them more rights than most other animals? We do differentiate between animals somewhat based on their complexity and mental capabilities. Stepping on an ant is okay, killing a dog isn’t.
Agreed. That being the case, I opened another thread over in GQ for anyone interested (which I fully realize might be nobody except me).
Anyway…
Not untrue, but in terms of the OP, what does “disability” have to do with it?
What would be the downside to the new laws that Spain put in place?
I was trying to illustrate the flaw in comparing an average ape to a disabled human being, and then terming the ape similarly disabled. A birth defect or injury is not the same as an evolutionary difference between species.
Again, I can’t disagree. But again, I have to wonder what the question of “disability” has to do with Spain’s new laws that were referenced in the OP.