Fwd: [EthologicalEthics] PETER SINGER SPEAKS OUT ON THE GREAT APE DEBATE

[Guest guest]

*---------- Forwarded message ----------

BEKOFF MARC <marc.bekoff

undisclosed-recipients: ;

Date:

[EthologicalEthics] The great ape debate unfolds in Europe

**http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20060522a1.html*<http://search.japant\

imes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20060522a1.html>

*The Japan Times: Monday, May 22, 2006

The Japan Times Printer Friendly Articles

The great ape debate unfolds in Europe

 

By PETER SINGER

PRINCETON, New Jersey -- In his " History of European Morals, " published in

1869, the Irish historian and philosopher W.E.H. Lecky wrote:

 

At one time the benevolent affections embrace merely the family, soon the

circle expanding includes first a class, then a nation, then a coalition of

nations, then all humanity and finally, its influence is felt in the

dealings of man with the animal world.

 

The expansion of the moral circle could be about to take a significant step

forward. Francisco Garrido, a bioethicist and member of Spain's parliament,

has moved a resolution exhorting the government " to declare its adhesion to

the Great Ape Project and to take any necessary measures

in international forums and organizations for the protection of great apes

from maltreatment, slavery, torture, death and extinction. "

 

The resolution would not have the force of law, but its approval would mark

the first time that a national legislature has recognized the special status

of great apes and the need to protect them, not only from extinction, but

also from individual abuse.

 

I founded the Great Ape Project together with Paola Cavalieri, an Italian

philosopher and animal advocate, in 1993. Our aim was to grant some basic

rights to the nonhuman great apes: life, liberty and the prohibition of

torture.

 

The project has proven controversial. Some opponents argue that, in

extending rights beyond our own species, it goes too far, while others claim

that, in limiting rights to the great apes, it does not go far enough.

 

We reject the first criticism entirely. There is no sound moral reason why

possession of basic rights should be limited to members of a particular

species. If we were to meet intelligent, sympathetic extraterrestrials,

would we deny them basic rights because they are not members of our own

species? At a minimum, we should recognize basic rights in all beings who

show intelligence and awareness (including some level of self-awareness) and

who have emotional and social needs.

 

We are more sympathetic to the second criticism. The Great Ape Project does

not reject the idea of basic rights for other animals. It merely asserts

that the case for such rights is strongest in respect to great apes. The

work of researchers like Jane Goodall, Diane Fossey, Birute Galdikas, Frans

de Waal, and many others amply demonstrates that the great

apes are intelligent beings with strong emotions that in many ways resemble

our own.

 

Chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas have long-term relationships, not only

between mothers and children, but also between unrelated apes. When a loved

one dies, they grieve for a long time. They can solve complex puzzles that

stump most 2-year-old humans. They can learn hundreds of signs, and put them

together in sentences that obey grammatical rules. They display a sense of

justice, resenting others who do not reciprocate a favor.

 

When we group chimpanzees together with, say, snakes, as " animals, " we imply

that the gap between us and chimpanzees is greater than the gap between

chimpanzees and snakes. But in evolutionary terms this is nonsense.

Chimpanzees and bonobos are our closest relatives, and we

humans, not gorillas or orangutans, are their closest relatives. Indeed,

three years ago, a group of scientists led by Derek Wildman proposed, in the

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that chimpanzees have been

shown to be so close to humans genetically that they should be

included in the genus Homo.

 

Like any important and novel idea, Garrido's proposal has aroused

considerable debate in Spain. Some are concerned that it will interfere with

medical research. But the only European biomedical research that has used

great apes recently is the Biomedical Primate Research Center at

Rijswijk, in the Netherlands. In 2002, a review by the Dutch Royal Academy

of Science found that the chimpanzee colony there was not serving any vital

research purposes. The Dutch government subsequently banned biomedical

research on chimpanzees. Thus, there is no European medical research

currently being conducted on great apes, and one barrier to

granting them some basic rights has collapsed.

 

Some of the opposition stems from misunderstandings. Recognizing the rights

of great apes does not mean that they all must be set free, even those born

and bred in zoos, who would be unable to survive in the wild. Nor does it

rule out euthanasia if that is in the interest of individual apes whose

suffering cannot be relieved. Just as some humans are unable to fend for

themselves and need others to act as their guardians, so, too, will great

apes living in the midst of human communities. What extending basic rights

to great apes does mean is that they will cease to be mere things that can

be owned and used for our amusement or entertainment.

 

A final group of opponents recognizes the strength of the case for extending

rights to great apes, but worries that this may pave the way for the

extension of rights to all primates, or all mammals, or all animals. They

could be right. Only time will tell. But that is irrelevant to the merits of

the case for granting basic rights to the great apes. We should not be

deterred from doing right now by the fear that we may later be persuaded

that we should do right again.

 

Peter Singer is a professor of bioethics at Princeton University. His most

recent book, coauthored with Jim Mason, is " The Way We Eat: Why Our Food

Choices Matter. " *