Recently, the Boston Globe published a story about an upcoming trial led by animal rights lawyer Steven Wise,, that will attempt to grant legal personhood for a captive chimpanzee.
I discuss Mr. Wise's work in Monkey Business and also examine this concept of a chimpanzee's proposed "personhood", explaining
Personhood need not be
synonymous with humanness. Granting the personhood of
animals does not require admittance that they are human, as, of course, by definition they're not. As
Gary Francione puts it, "To say that a being is a person is merely to
say that the being has morally significant interests, that the principle of
equal consideration applies to that being, that the being is not a thing."[i]
The benefits that accompany personhood, such as the right to liberty and the ability to perform natural behaviors, would be granted to nonhuman primates under this rights theory, but without personhood, future
legal decisions must remain relegated to what Francione refers to as "micro-ethical issues."[ii]
Concerns such as cage size, enrichment requirements, and nutritional regulations only distract from
the larger issue of granting inherent rights to nonhuman primates. In Francione's words, "Is our
exploitation of
nonhumans justified in the first place?"[iii]
Or have humans just grown ever more adept
at crafting laws that make our exploitive treatment of nonhuman primates seem
necessary and unavoidable?
[i] Francione, Animals as Persons, 61.
[ii] Francione, Animals, Property, 25.
[iii] Ibid., 25.
You can read the Boston Globe's article here.
What are your thoughts? The personhood of nonhumans is a completely foreign idea to some people, but when you really think about it, you may come to some startling conclusions.
Want to read more about the personhood of nonhuman primates? Want to learn more about the fascinating insights of people like Steven Wise, Gary Francione, and Peter Singer?
No comments:
Post a Comment