Great ape personhood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Bonobos, members of the great ape family

Great ape personhood is a movement to extend personhood and some legal protections to the four non-human members of the Hominidae or great ape family: bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.[1]

Advocates include primatologists Jane Goodall and Dawn Prince-Hughes, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, philosopher Peter Singer, and legal scholar Steven Wise.[2]

Early legislation[edit]

On February 28, 2007 the parliament of the Balearic Islands, an autonomous community of Spain, passed the world's first legislation that would effectively grant legal personhood rights to all great apes.[3] The act sent ripples out of the region and across Spain, producing public support for the rights of great apes. On June 25, 2008 a parliamentary committee set forth resolutions urging Spain to grant the primates the rights to life and liberty. If approved "it will ban harmful experiments on apes and make keeping them for circuses, television commercials, or filming illegal under Spain's penal code." [4]

These precedents followed years of European legal efforts. In 1992, Switzerland amended its constitution to recognize animals as beings and not things.[5] However, in 1999 the Swiss constitution was completely rewritten. A decade later, Germany guaranteed rights to animals in a 2002 amendment to its constitution, becoming the first European Union member to do so.[5][6][7]

New Zealand granted strong protections to five great ape species in 1999. Their use is now forbidden in research, testing, or teaching. Some argue that New Zealand's protections amount to a form of weak legal rights.[8]

Several European countries (including Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden) completely banned the use of great apes in animal testings.[9]

Advocacy[edit]

Well-known advocates include primatologist Jane Goodall, who was appointed a goodwill ambassador for the United Nations to fight the bushmeat trade and end ape extinction; Richard Dawkins, former Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University; Peter Singer, professor of philosophy at Princeton University; and attorney and former Harvard professor Steven Wise, founder and president of the Nonhuman Rights Project, whose aim is to work through U.S. common law on a state-by-state basis to achieve recognition of legal personhood for great apes and other self-aware, autonomous nonhuman animals.[2][10]

In December 2013, the NhRP filed three lawsuits on behalf of four chimpanzees being held in captivity in New York State, arguing that they should be recognized as legal persons with the fundamental right to bodily liberty (i.e. not to be held in captivity) and that they are entitled to common law writs of habeas corpus and should be immediately freed and moved to sanctuaries.[11] All three petitions for writs of habeas corpus were denied, allowing for the right to appeal. The NhRP is in the process of appealing all three decisions.[12]

Goodall's longitudinal studies revealed the social and family life of chimps to be very similar to that of human beings in some respects. She herself calls them individuals, and says they relate to her as an individual member of the clan. Laboratory studies of ape language ability began to reveal other human traits, as did genetics, and eventually three of the great apes were reclassified as hominids.

Other studies, such as one done by Evans T. and Beran, M. point out other qualities that humans share with non-human primates. Turns out the ability to self-control is not unique to humans. In order for chimpanzees to control their impulsivity they use self-distraction techniques similar to those that are used by children. Great apes also exhibited ability to plan as well as project “oneself into the future”. That is the process of mental time travel. Such complicated task requires self-awareness (that great apes possess): “the capacity that contribute to the ability to delay gratification, since a self-aware individual may be able to imagine future states of the self”.[13]

This, plus rising ape extinction and the animal rights movement has put pressure on nations to recognize apes as having limited rights and being legal "persons." In response, the United Kingdom introduced a ban on research using great apes, although testing on other primates has not been limited.[14]

Writer and lecturer, Thomas Rose, makes the argument that granting legal rights afforded to humans to non-humans is nothing new. He points out that in the majority of the world, "corporations are recognized as legal persons and are granted many of the same rights humans enjoy, the right to sue, to vote and to freedom of speech."[3] Dawn Prince-Hughes has written that great apes meet all the standards set out for personhood: "self-awareness; comprehension of past, present, and future; the ability to understand complex rules and their consequences on emotional levels; the ability to choose to risk those consequences, a capacity for empathy, and the ability to think abstractly."[15]

Gary Francione questions the concept of granting personhood on the basis of whether the animal in question is human-like (as some have argued for great apes), and clarifies that sentience is the sole characteristic an animal requires to have basic rights. Therefore, he asserts, other animals including mice and rats should also be granted such rights.[16]

Interpretation[edit]

Depending on the precise wording of any proposed or adopted declaration, personhood for the Great Apes may raise questions concerning protections and obligations under national and international laws, such as:

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Bhagwat, S. B. Foundation of Geology. Global Vision, 2009, pp. 232–235:
    "The Hominidae form a taxonomic family, including five extant genera: humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos and orangutans."
    Groves, Colin P. "Great Apes: The Conflict of Gene-Pools, Conservation and Personhood" in Emily Rousham, Leonard Freedman, and Rayma Pervan. Perspectives in Human Biology: Humans in the Australasian Region. World Scientific, 1996, p. 31:
    "The recognition that we as a species are not phylogenetically separated from other animals, but are nested within the primate group known as the Great Apes, is no longer controversial. Goodman (1963) proposed on this basis to include the great apes (orang utan, gorilla and chimpanzee) in the family Hominidate, a view revived by Groves (1986) and increasingly adopted since then. Increasingly, too, the vernacular term 'Great Apes' has come to be used as a pure synonym for Hominidae, so that humans are also 'Great Apes.' The only remaining systemic controversy seems to be whether chimpanzees and gorillas together form the sister-group of humans, or chimpanzees and humans together constitute the sister-group of gorillas."
    Karcher, Karen. "The Great Ape Project" in Marc Bekoff (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare. Greenwood, 2009, pp. 185–187:
    "The Great Ape Project (GAP) seeks to extend the scope of three basic moral principles to all members of what the GAP founders call the five great ape species (humans, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans)."
  2. ^ a b Goodall, Jane in Paola Cavalieri & Peter Singer (eds.) The Great Ape Project: Equality Beyond Humanity. St Martin's Griffin, 1994.
    Dawkins, Richard. "Gaps in the Mind" in Paola Cavalieri & Peter Singer (eds.) The Great Ape Project: Equality Beyond Humanity. St Martin's Griffin, 1994.
    Cavalieri, Paola & Singer, Peter (eds.) The Great Ape Project: Equality Beyond Humanity. St Martin's Griffin, 1994.
    Motavalli, Jim. "Rights from Wrongs. A Movement to Grant Legal Protection to Animals is Gathering Force", E Magazine, March/April 2003.
  3. ^ a b Thomas Rose (2007-08-02). "Going ape over human rights". CBC News. Archived from the original on 2010-02-03. Retrieved 2008-06-26. 
  4. ^ "Spanish parliament to extend rights to apes". Reuters. 2008-06-25. Retrieved 2008-07-11. 
  5. ^ a b "Germany guarantees animal rights in constitution". Associated Press. 2002-05-18. Retrieved 2008-06-26. 
  6. ^ "Germany guarantees animal rights". CNN. 2002-06-21. Retrieved 2008-06-26. 
  7. ^ Kate Connolly (2002-06-22). "German animals given legal rights". The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-06-26. [dead link]
  8. ^ "A STEP AT A TIME: NEW ZEALAND'S PROGRESS TOWARD HOMINID RIGHTS" BY ROWAN TAYLOR
  9. ^ http://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXII/I/I_00993/fnameorig_043770.html
  10. ^ "Nonhuman Rights Project". 
  11. ^ Charles Siebert (23 April 2014). "Should a Chimp Be Able to Sue Its Owner?". New York Times Magazine. 
  12. ^ Robert Gavin (3 October 2014). "Appeals panel to weigh personhood for chimpanzee". Times Union. 
  13. ^ Heilbronner, S. Platt, M., L. (4 December 2007). "Animal Cognition: Time Flies When Chimps Are Having Fun.". doi:10.1016/j.cub.2007.10.012. 
  14. ^ Alok Jha (2005-12-05). "RSPCA outrage as experiments on animals rise to 2.85m". The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-06-26. 
  15. ^ Prince-Hughes, Dawn (1987). Songs of the Gorilla Nation. Harmony. p. 138. ISBN 1-4000-5058-8. 
  16. ^ Francione, Gary (2006). "The Great Ape Project: Not so Great". Retrieved 2010-03-22.