If they pass this, I could see how it could cause a lot of problems.
If great apes are given rights in Spain that they do not enjoy elsewhere, could the Spanish justify removing apes from their country that were brought there illegally? I’d think not. This will lead to an increase in ape theft by radical animal rights activists, because they’ll have someplace to take them. Spain would be inundated with apes smuggled into their country and then released to be somebody elses problem. Labs, zoos, and animal parks that have great apes will have to either increase their security or stop keeping them. One of the things holding back these activists is that there was not much point in freeing captive apes because it wasn’t likely to improve their condition. That will change.
Or a parrot. A parrot can talk, but is it communication? I imagine if it figures out that when it says, ‘Polly want a cracker’, that it gets a cracker that would be communication. Does that mean if you have a choice between and ape, a parrot, and a baby to pull out of a burning building you choose the parrot?
I’m in another thread in GD on abortion where a similar issue is being discussed. Lines are arbitrary. So you set a line that includes apes today, why not move it more and include cats and dogs? Or ants? What have you.
[/QUOTE]
I think we are not understanding each other. Nobody has said that “communication” should be the measure, in fact I have argued that there is no measure, so I don’t know where you get your hypothetical above.
Second, nobody has said that even if you could find some morally relevant indicator, that there aren’t gradations within it. Not Singer nor the Spanish gvt nor anyone in this thread has suggested that you should value the life of a parrot (or even a great ape) over the life of a baby.
Also, I am quite explicitly not saying anything absolute about where the line should be. I am saying that the line as we currently envision it is inconsistently applied, and that we need to discuss where to put it.
I agree that any line would be arbitrary. But what I (and Singer, and the Spanish government) am saying is that even though it is arbitrary, it should still be consistent. This is an ongoing philosophical discussion that our society needs to have. Just because it is conceivably possible that a particular line of argument could, in theory, lead to something else you disagree with, does that mean that the argument is necessarily invalid?
I’m not saying I disagree with it. I’m saying that the line could just as well be moved to exclude some humans as to include apes. And by moving that line it doesn’t mean that those outside of it should get a bullet in the head, or start being tortured as has been noted by yourself in regards to apes. Maybe it means that heroic measures aren’t taken to keep someone alive who is obviously brain dead, etc.
Yep, that’s another part of Singer’s argument. You should really take a look at Rethinking Life and Death if you’re interested in this stuff. He doesn’t focus on rights for great apes specifically, but does discuss it in the context of abortion and assisted suicide. Very interesting stuff.
I’ve only had the briefest of experience with Singer, but he must have mellowed over the years, given what you’ve said, and I’m a little curious about some of it. As I recall, he has asserted the following:
[ol][li] There is precisely one moral indicator: the ability to feel pain.[/li][li] There are no morally relevant gradation of this indicator.[/li][li] Therefore, all animals have exactly equal moral worth.[/li][/ol]
If this has changed, I’m intrigued and would like to know more.
The ‘apes’ living on Gibraltar are not apes at all; they are monkeys; this is not a trifling distinction when it comes to arguments about rights for primates on the grounds of their similarity to humans. Moreover, the monkeys on Gibraltar are thought to have been ointroduced by the British (for shooting practice, apparently) at around about the time when they took possession of Gib.
When someone says that they ‘recall’ something and then write down what they recall from memory, then they are not a liar if they are mistaken. It is just that, a mistake. Especially, if they ask for more information about what they have said afterwards. Now you may have other information to back up the claim that the poster was lying, or maybe you just come from a planet where ‘to lie’ means something different from the standard meaning the rest of us place on it? Might I ask which is it, please?
My goodness. Apples and oranges are both sweet and delicious; that is a direct comparison. That does not constitute calling an apple an orange. Do I really need to explain this to you?
Next lesson: what I did was to contrast our treatment of humans and apes, not to compare them. Because this is a distinction most common to literature, I’ll let it slide; it makes sense to say that I compared them.
But to suggest that I called apes “folks” is to show that you don’t grasp the simplest thing I say.