Is it time to think things over? Chimps are people too.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
I doubt see why you would delimit based on species?

I don't believe rights are given for our survival and prosperity. Humans have survived and prospered for millenia without such rights. For many centuries the 'white species' survived and prospered and justified slavery using an analagous type of argument you gave, saying that 'blacks' were sub-human.

But why should we care about rights for chimps when they cannot even do something similar for themselves?

Oh, and I don´t mean we shouldn´t care totally about other species, I just don´t think chimps should have equal rights.

Edit: I must have been somehow on drugs yesterday, because I agreed with your 1st post. What I meant was, I gree with what you said initially ("I don't really care about the genetics or the nomenclature. What is more important is how 'human' they are in their abilities and thought processes.")

But I don´t agree what you said afterwards about their rights, because I doubt that they are really so much "human".
Just to clarify....

[Az]

I doubt see why you would delimit based on species?

Because they don't have the concept of rights, but we do. Why should rights apply to them? Rights are being applied on the basis of humanity, not intelligence. Now the former is a rather difficult concept, even more difficult than the later. But this is becides the point. It is that former concept which is a criteria for "rights".

I don't believe rights are given for our survival and prosperity. Humans have survived and prospered for millenia without such rights.

"given" is not a suitable concept. Our society has evolved to create them, in order to survive. Societies are very much like living creatures in that sense. They obey the laws of evolution.

For many centuries the 'white species' survived and prospered and justified slavery using an analagous type of argument you gave, saying that 'blacks' were sub-human.

But blacks WERE NOT SUB-HUMAN! That's the entire point. Black people ARE humans, and that's why what was done to them is so wrong.

Unless you're equating blacks with chimps. ( I know you don't I just couldn't stop myself from this little troll. )

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Zero


Given that Chimps do not have thumbs, I doubt that they really have any chance of utilizing tools. Which handicaps them from developing in the same way we did.

Also, the ability to pass on knowledge. If such ability isnt with the chimps, no matter how smart they are, they wouldnt be able to develop. Maybe they can teach a few simple tricks and pas those among generations, but unless you have some sort of complex communication system that can be preserved, you will not achieve this. Once again, in order to write something, you need an ability to utilize tools, something chimps dont have.

Untrue. I'm an anthropology major, and chimps have been known to use over 12 different types of tools for collecting food, etc. And they learn how to use the tools by observing other chimps, or in other words, but passed on knowledge. And the defintion of culture, in anthropological terms, is anything learned that is passed on from one generation to another. So there is in a sense chimp culture.

But chimps are not humans by any means. We are so similar because we are derived from the same proto-primate from millions of years ago and humans, by necessity had to become hunters and escape predators, so our brains go bigger (in a nutshell). Chimps were able to survive with a primative brain, so they never evolved a more complex one.

Chimps can achieve an intelligence level of around a 2 year old at best. But do three year old humans have rights? No, because they're so dumb they're useless... until they get older that is. Chimps don't get any smarter however. The only rights chimps should be given is the right not to be killed, which they already have in most countries.

Chimps are not humans, we are just distant relatives with about 100k years of cultural evolution ahead of them. Don't get me wrong though, they are amazingly intelligent and fascinating creature and offer us alot of insight into our distant past... but to say they are human is just an insult to us.

And chimps are too instinct driven to even be bothered with a sense of rights or morality. They just can't think on that level. While we're busy thinking of them as humans and worrying about morality, their little brains are thinking "food, food, food, tree, food, bugs, food, food, food!" Cmon now... lets stop with the silliness.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by Azazel
But blacks WERE NOT SUB-HUMAN! That's the entire point. Black people ARE humans, and that's why what was done to them is so wrong.

Unless you're equating blacks with chimps. ( I know you don't I just couldn't stop myself from this little troll. )

Counter-troll: why NOT equate blacks with chimps?

(checks flame-retardant defenses)

Here's my case:

The notion of "human rights" is a relatively recent development in Western society. There have been many human societies which lacked a concept of "human rights" applicable to ALL humans (typically, just those of the tribe). And yet we now impose a concept of "universal human rights" on other societies which lacked this concept, and we call this a "good thing".

I'm not arguing that it isn't a good thing. I'm arguing that we have never before used the existence of this concept among other peoples to determine whether they should benefit from it or not. If we discover a tribe of head-hunters in New Guinea which lack this concept: they don't get "human rights"?

If they do: why not chimps?

But something needs to be done. We can't leave chimps grouped with gorillas when their nearest relatives are humans. That would be like grouping hyenas with felines when their nearest relatives are canines. All members of a group should be more closely related with each other than with any members of another group.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

Counter-troll: why NOT equate blacks with chimps?

(checks flame-retardant defenses)

Here's my case:

The notion of "human rights" is a relatively recent development in Western society. There have been many human societies which lacked a concept of "human rights" applicable to ALL humans (typically, just those of the tribe). And yet we now impose a concept of "universal human rights" on other societies which lacked this concept, and we call this a "good thing".

I'm not arguing that it isn't a good thing. I'm arguing that we have never before used the existence of this concept among other peoples to determine whether they should benefit from it or not. If we discover a tribe of head-hunters in New Guinea which lack this concept: they don't get "human rights"?

If they do: why not chimps?

But something needs to be done. We can't leave chimps grouped with gorillas when their nearest relatives are humans. That would be like grouping hyenas with felines when their nearest relatives are canines. All members of a group should be more closely related with each other than with any members of another group.

I see what you're getting at, but all humans are still part of the homo sapien sapien species... chimps and other animals are not. They can't even fathom the idea of rights. Its all dog eat dog to them.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

I'm not arguing that it isn't a good thing. I'm arguing that we have never before used the existence of this concept among other peoples to determine whether they should benefit from it or not. If we discover a tribe of head-hunters in New Guinea which lack this concept: they don't get "human rights"?

If they do: why not chimps?

Because our concept is called "human rights" not "rights for highly civilized humans only".

Means, even head-hunters in New Guinea probably have abilities similar to us, while chimps lack them. To use JimmyCracksCorn´s words - the head-hunters can reach higher levels than those of a 2 year old child, but chimps remain on that level (if he´s right - I don´t consider me an expert here, but his post makes sense )

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by BeBro


Because our concept is called "human rights" not "rights for highly civilized humans only".

Means, even head-hunters in New Guinea probably have abilities similar to us, while chimps lack them. To use JimmyCracksCorn´s words - the head-hunters can reach higher levels than those of a 2 year old child, but chimps remain on that level (if he´s right - I don´t consider me an expert here, but his post makes sense )

Yeah, if you put a head hunter in my shoes, he'd be as intelligent as I am (not to sound cocky), likewise if you put me in the head hunter's shoes, I'd probably be pretty thick. However, if you put a chimp in Harvard, he'd still be a dumb old chimp.

[Dauphin]

How human would an a group of animals have to be to be given human rights.

Take Neanderthals as a starting model. If they were still around and showed no ability to reproduce with humans, had no way to meaningfully interact with human society, but demonstrated the same basic emotions and intelligence would they be afforded some rights?

[Zero]

Im gonna stir this topic a bit more:

What about mentally hadicapped humans? do they have human rights?

do fetus's have human rights?

[Az]

Take Neanderthals as a starting model. If they were still around and showed no ability to reproduce with humans, had no way to meaningfully interact with human society, but demonstrated the same basic emotions and intelligence would they be afforded some rights?

Not if we can't interact with them in any meaningful way ( like with other humans ). But we probably could. ( never mattered to us then, we wiped them clean. or ****ged them. in any case, they're gone. )

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
How human would an a group of animals have to be to be given human rights.

I don´t know. But see it the other way around - where to draw the line when you want to decide which animal is "human" enough, and which not?

But from what I´ve read the Neanderthals would be probably candidates for certain rights.

What about mentally hadicapped humans? do they have human rights?

do fetus's have human rights?

If one has those rights, then because of a human definition of such rights (and how far they reach) - unless you believe in god.

For example, in some ancient societies it was allowed to kill a new born child in certain cases - if you were to poor to feed it, or if it was considered "weak" or if it was disabled (is that the right expression?).

But today it is considered murder, because we changed the definition of rights. So, if the society decides to grant those rights to mentally handicapped humans, they have them.

In Germany, it is considered that a fetus is "unborn life", and should be protected. However, abortion is allowed up to a point, because the right of a woman to decide about herself is protected too. Therefore, you have to find a solution between those two important things.

[Zero]

Well I dont want to continue on with fetus (cause we will make a mess out of it).

Why I mentioned Mentally handicapped ppl is that it creates a fallacy within the definition we created here in this forum. All this time I was arguing that Chimps should have equal rights as us if they are capable of same intellectual capacity. And I believed that this was possible until JimmyCracksCorn came to us and shared his expertise and told us that this is impossible. Therefore argument based on intellectual capacity, chimps should not be granted the same rights.

But conveniently, when I was about to agree with u guys I came up with this thought Think about it. Among our own species, theres an example of an organism without the intellectual capacity as the rest of us. Yet they are treated with the same human rights. Long time ago, we didnt have the same rights for people for ended up in mental institution, but now we obviously do. So why do these people have the same rights? Im sure most of you guys feel like me as that they should have same rights as us and it is unquestionable... but where is this certainty coming from? More and more I think about it, the argument based on inteelectual capacity seems to be insignifcant if I were to say that these people have the saem rights as us.

So should this topic go into a loop and once again revisit why rights are reserved to only humankind? Is that basically the ultimate definition of who has rights? The more I probe at these question the more it is getting interesting.

[Zero]

Originally posted by BeBro

But today it is considered murder, because we changed the definition of rights. So, if the society decides to grant those rights to mentally handicapped humans, they have them.

thats interesting. Have we changed the definition of rights, or have we come to realize the term of rights better? as in did our moral and ethical reasoning mature for us to realize that Rights encompass these people as well or have we extended the border of what rights encompasses?

did black people have same rights as white before but were denied and ignored from this concept

or

Were black granted same rights when we "extended" our view who gets these rights?

[Edan]

It's a mad house! A MAD HOUSE!

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Zero
But conveniently, when I was about to agree with u guys I came up with this thought Think about it. Among our own species, theres an example of an organism without the intellectual capacity as the rest of us. Yet they are treated with the same human rights. Long time ago, we didnt have the same rights for people for ended up in mental institution, but now we obviously do. So why do these people have the same rights? Im sure most of you guys feel like me as that they should have same rights as us and it is unquestionable... but where is this certainty coming from? More and more I think about it, the argument based on inteelectual capacity seems to be insignifcant if I were to say that these people have the saem rights as us.

So should this topic go into a loop and once again revisit why rights are reserved to only humankind? Is that basically the ultimate definition of who has rights?

Our species and certain abilities play a role, but basically we have rights, because we are able to define them. Then you can say that not all humans aren´t equally able - but that doesn´t play a role to me, as long as the society decides to grant those people rights too (as we do it).

The rights we define should make sense, and in democratic societies we think more rights for all have certain advantages for the society as a whole. One could say that our society may run great too, if we deny some people certain rights, but this creates IMO more problems - where to draw the line? If only intelligence would play a role - why not grant rights only for people above IQ 100 or 500? Or only for me?

Then we have the problem of different societies - some grant other or less rights. Eg. Nazi-Germany denied Jews certain rights. How could they do it? Because they defined it that way, and had the power to implement that. Does that mean I can´t criticize it, because it was their decision? No, I think I can criticise it, because it is not only immoral from my POV, but it is also nonsense, because I don´t see any evidence why Jews would be inferior. And a society that relies that much on repression while there are others at the same time which don´t need such repression doesn´t seem to work very well.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Zero
did black people have same rights as white before but were denied and ignored from this concept

or

Were black granted same rights when we "extended" our view who gets these rights?

Good question. My idealistic ego would say, they had always the right to have the same rights , and finally our societies got wise enough to grant them those rights too. That was the reason to change the definitions.

[Zero]

You completely missed my point.

And where are your certainties coming from? I am just as certain as you that rights of handicaps and jews should be as same as white people, but why? where is the reasoning? And why are some of u so strongly certain chimps do not share the same rights? If its matter of being a member of same species I can understand (but later question why it is exclusive to only species) but if that isnt the case, why are we so strongly compelled to feel this way?

Then you can say that not all humans aren´t equally able - but that doesn´t play a role to me, as long as the society decides to grant those people rights too (as we do it).

Eg. Nazi-Germany denied Jews certain rights. How could they do it? Because they defined it that way, and had the power to implement that. Does that mean I can´t criticize it, because it was their decision? No, I think I can criticise it, because it is not only immoral from my POV, but it is also nonsense, because I don´t see any evidence why Jews would be inferior.

Is rights defined by society's power to implement or what is inherently right and wrong? Cause Im confused by ur statement.

EDIT: ur post above seems to answer this one. which makes me think ur first paragraph was not meant to sound as I had interpretted it.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Zero
And where are your certainties coming from? I am just as certain as you that rights of handicaps and jews should be as same as white people, but why? where is the reasoning?

The Nazis said Jews were inferior, this was their basic reasoning, so Jews shouldn´t get equal rights. Since there´s no sign that Jews are really inferior, the position of the Nazi´s doesn´t make sense to me. There are, however, a lot of things that prove that a normal Jew is perfectly able to be as intelligent or as stupid as the normal German.

So if inferiority is out it is absolutely reasonable to grant them equal rights. Same with Blacks/Whites.

Is rights defined by society's power to implement or what is inherently right and wrong? Cause Im confused by ur statement.

The problem is what is inherent for you. Do you mean in the sense of pure natural law? Or inherent because God gave them to all? I think certain rights should be granted everyone, but when we say rights are defined by ourselves - can we then say they are inherent?

[Az]

BeBro:

[Dauphin]

I guess the whole thing really does come down to the current worldview of a society. That in turn is subjective and depends on where and how people see and place their views and priorities.


We have been discussing the theoretical notions of giving rights, but what are the practical implications? If we gave rights, it would most likely mean that lab experiments would stop, but would it mean chimps can still be kept in zoos? What practical implications would it have for chimps in their natural habitat? Would it just effectively mean a declaration to preserve their habitats?

We could just pass laws for enviromental and animal welfare reasons to achieve these aims. Its really only if we are trying to force a change in the human perception of chimps and other primates that we should be giving rights (that are practically equivalent to any laws we would want to pass).

[Zero]

Originally posted by BeBro
The Nazis said Jews were inferior, this was their basic reasoning, so Jews shouldn´t get equal rights. Since there´s no sign that Jews are really inferior, the position of the Nazi´s doesn´t make sense to me. There are, however, a lot of things that prove that a normal Jew is perfectly able to be as intelligent or as stupid as the normal German.

So if inferiority is out it is absolutely reasonable to grant them equal rights. Same with Blacks/Whites.

So then you have absolutely no problem with not granting handicaps equal rights? You keep hammering that Jews can be just as intelligent and dumb as a german. That isnt really answering my question.

Is rights based on intelligence? Will Jews be considered unequal IF they were as a race dumb?


[q]
The problem is what is inherent for you. Do you mean in the sense of pure natural law? Or inherent because God gave them to all? I think certain rights should be granted everyone, but when we say rights are defined by ourselves - can we then say they are inherent? [/QUOTE]

So you're saying its subjective now.

[St Leo]

What rights are we talking about? I'm going to refer to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;

I guess it's unethical to use chimps in certain kinds of experiments. Bah. That's what rats, pigs, and human volunteers are for.

b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

If chimps want to get on a soapbox and rant about the Innate Superiority of Chimpkind, I am not going to stop them.

c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

Check.

d) freedom of association.

Dunno if this has been infringed. We have certainly not been paying enough attention to the wishes of chimps in captibity...

3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

No one is suggesting making chimps citizens.

(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right

a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

This one's a toughie. How do we provide chimps with the right to relocate?

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Well, duh. Don't murder chimps. Couldn't be clearer than that.

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Sign-language is sufficient for consent of this kind, n'est pas?

9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

We need to work in this regard.

12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

Well, duh.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

I don't think this needs to be modified to include species (though sexual orientation does need to be added).

16. (1) English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada.

Chimps can deal with sign language quite well. No worries there.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Zero

So then you have absolutely no problem with not granting handicaps equal rights? You keep hammering that Jews can be just as intelligent and dumb as a german. That isnt really answering my question.

I think it does, but I also think I should explain better what I mean. But I have to prepare for the uni now - I´ll give you a bigger answer later....

Leo:

[Az]

So then you have absolutely no problem with not granting handicaps equal rights? You keep hammering that Jews can be just as intelligent and dumb as a german. That isnt really answering my question.

Is rights based on intelligence? Will Jews be considered unequal IF they were as a race dumb?

The ... mentally deficient do not have full rights, AFAIK.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Take Neanderthals as a starting model. If they were still around and showed no ability to reproduce with humans, had no way to meaningfully interact with human society, but demonstrated the same basic emotions and intelligence would they be afforded some rights?

Yes, they would. Neaderthals were very very very human like, in fact, if one was dressed in modern clothes and standing in a crowd, you wouldn't necessarily even notice a difference... aside from slightly broad features like the forehead and nose, but plently of people today look like that. And while they didn't have the same capacity for intelligence as we do, they were extremely intelligent, probably with the same brain capacity as maybe an 11 year old (rough guess, I need to look it up). We are pretty certain they had a complex language, or at least the ability for it. And there are even finds suggesting they made music and other kinds of simple arts.

So they would definately be aware of a concept of rights and how they apply to them and what they are entitled to (of course no one actually knows this...). In fact, some researchers think that neanderthals were so similar to us, that theyshould be put in the same homo sapien sapien family as us.

But I mean, as far as chimps, we could give them equal, or nearly equal, rights as us, its not like it would be so much a bad thing as much as it would be a useless one. The idea of "rights" is such a complex one that we take it for granted being as intelligent as we are. Understanding the concept of "rights" implies that we can simultaneously recognize that there are more people than us, that those people are humans, that we are human, that humans are inherently given certain priveleges, etc, etc... its incredibly complex. And there's alot of unexplainable behavior we see in chimps, like random infanticide, random beatings/killings, matricide, patricide, fratricide... sure, humans are capable of all that, but its tabooed because we can understand the ideas of rights and morality... chimps can't.

[BeBro]

Ok, I´ll try it. But first some other points: It may surprise you , but I don´t claim to be the ultimate authority when it comes to this kind of problems. Therefore, the things I post are there to show my current general line of thinking about the issue of human rights. I´m perfectly aware that there are certain counter-arguments possible. That´s why I´m trying to answer those possible counter-arguments as best I can within my posts. So when I restate a Nazi position it is not because I share that position, but because I need to consider different positions (even those I find finally wrong) to take or justify my own position

Ok, let´s start....

Originally posted by Zero
So then you have absolutely no problem with not granting handicaps equal rights?

IMO they should have basic rights (eg. nobody should be allowed to murder them), the rest depends how serious their handicap is. Because in reality not everyone has totally equal rights (Azazel said it). For instance if a person is mentally ill so that person must live in a psychiatric clinic (sp?), he can´t enjoy the same freedoms as another person.

Also childs do not have full rights. Of course we aren´t allowed to murder them, but they cannot vote, and if they sign a contract, it is not seen as valid. So society can limit certain rights. The problem is how to find those limits.

You keep hammering that Jews can be just as intelligent and dumb as a german. That isnt really answering my question.

I said species and intelligence play a role, not that only intelligence is the key. In the end I base my POV on the question "What is reasonable?". Because the modern concept of humans rights bases on reason. That is not the same as intelligence - IQs can be high or low. But reason is basically there for all, except perhaps some extreme cases (I´m no expert in mental problems). But it wouldn´t be reasonable to me to base a general concept of human rights on some exceptions (those people with extreme mental problems).

Is rights based on intelligence? Will Jews be considered unequal IF they were as a race dumb?

Then we all would be dumb too, because the entire concept of races with certain abilities is (mildly expressed) highly in question. They are basically humans, so they are reasonable beings.

But ok, let´s assume we had a group of people who would just are on the level of the chimps - to grant them totally equal rights doesn´t make sense then anymore, because they probably don´t know what to do with those rights. Leo´s post answers that perfectly - the chimps don´t start demonstrations to promote their chimphood, they don´t form pro-chimp parties etc. That doesn´t mean however, that we should kill´em all.

So IF there are humans without certain abilities, it is indeed possible to limit their rights. But limitation doesn´t mean that they are totally without rights. As shown above, childs have not full rights until a certain age, but they have certain rights (therefore we cannot murder them). Same with mentally handicapped. I don´t think this collides in general with a concept of human rights for all.

So you're saying its subjective now.

Not neccessarily. Of course, my POV is at first subjective because it is influenced by my own moral system. But however, reason and logic are basically the same for all. I mean, the Nazis can believe what they want about their superiority, they even can try to prove it by scientific means - when someone is able to show that their beliefs are based on wrong assumptions, he can objectively (well as far as a human can be objective ) say that their concept of moral is not reasonable.

If he then offers a reasonable concept, I´d call it objective, because humans are generally reasonable beings. As shown some posts before if Jews demonstrate equal abilities, the concept of German superiority breaks down. Therefore, a concept of equal rights for Germans and Jews is more reasonable.

Ok, I´ll stop now. As said in the beginning, I´m aware that there are several counter-arguments possible. But it can only be good for the discussion....

[DaShi]

You should have used the "Chimps are Homos" title.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel
again, what is the connection between being intelligent and being given rights?

But wouldn't you think that's a better basis than proximity by DNA? Suppose that we find an intelligent race of aliens on Alpha Centurai, shouldn't we treat them just like us, dispite the fact that their DNA is very likely completely different from ours?

[Ramo]

I can assert that they can and you can assert that they can't all day and we won't get anywhere.

I'd be interested in seeing you make your case.

I disagree. Sentience is self-awareness, thus any creatures that can demonstrate such a trait should be granted the same rights as humans.

What is self-awareness, exactly?

Abstract thought is too imprecise a term.

That's because the distinction between a person and nonperson is not very precise itself.

again, what is the connection between being intelligent and being given rights?

Intelligence confers the ability to act responsibly within society. A human can generally be trusted to act responsibly within society; a tiger, for instance, can't. And the ability to act responsibly within society should determine the level freedom in society (that's why serial killers, for instance, should be locked up).

[Az]

But wouldn't you think that's a better basis than proximity by DNA?

Yes.

Suppose that we find an intelligent race of aliens on Alpha Centauri, shouldn't we treat them just like us, dispite the fact that their DNA is very likely completely different from ours?

No. They wouldn't treat us equally either, unless it's productive, biologically, for both races.

If they'd see a chance to wipe us out, they'll surely do this.