Rights for Apes: Op-Ed vs. Op-Ed
If you didn’t see "Why They’re Human Rights," by Russell Paul La Valle in July 27th’s Washington Post, consider yourself lucky, as it’s eye-rollingly frustrating in its misconceptions and its speciesism. Fortunately, Barbara J. King took him on in yesterday’s "What Binta Jua Knew," deconstructing many of his misconceptions, but doing so while jumping on the speciesism train, which she appears to not be aware of and/or not care about.
But good for her for at least pointing out that, contrary to what La Valle wrote, apes are not "irrational, amoral" animals who rely on only instincts. That’s sooo yesterday. So Cartesian, which King thankfully points out.
My concern with all of the articles about rights for apes is that reasoning always–always–centers on how humanlike they are. King goes that route too, but also touches on sentience, perhaps without meaning to. In her conclusion, she writes:
"But while writers such as La Valle bandy words about and academics such as I discuss the philosophical aspects of rights, the great apes are dying.
The combined forces of poaching, diseases such as ebola fever, habitat destruction and the trade in bushmeat are killing off the apes at unprecedented rates. If we write them off as irrational and amoral animals, we will fail to grasp the depth of their suffering at the hands of our own species — a suffering that is cognitive and emotional as well as physical."
My question is: What about all of the other animals suffering at our hands . . . cognitively, emotionally and physically?
I cannot help thinking that this notion of "giving animals human rights" is a terrible way of putting it. I suppose a speciesist society is bound to spin it that way but animal rights is not about giving rights it is about respecting existing moral rights – the 'giving' comes if rights need be codified into law and we may think it an awful thing that we have to write down rules like "do not murder" and "do not rape".
Saying that we are "giving human rights to animals" makes the job seem harder even though the underlying process is standard in philosophical terms: "One key task of philosophy is to criticise other philosophy, not only – even if most importantly – in the interest of truth but also, whether philosophers will it so or not, philosophical ideas are influential in social, moral and political life."
MacIntyre, Alasdair. (1970) Marcuse. London: Fontana, p. 7.
I think about speciesism all the time– and write and teach about issues related to it. While I don't want to make a claim that apes deserve favor only because they are like us, I won't squander ANY chance to get people interested in their plight. As an anthropologist, my own writing at times leans heavily on data from apes because they're our closest living relatives and I write about models of the evolution of culture, language, and religion. This doesn't mean that I think apes are somehow more worthy living creatures. I believe, perhaps in disagreement with you, that raising awareness about ape emotions, consciousness, meaning-making, etc., is likely to lead to broader sensitivity to the aimal world more generally. This is what I've tried to do in my books as well as my classroom.
As I hope my op-ed made clear, I actually DON'T push the idea of rights for great apes. I'm not to be classified, please, with ape rightists.
My life is wrapped up with animals. My husband and I care for a large number of homeless cats, and one rescued rabbit. We live with cats indoors; care for ex-feral cats in a spacious, shaded, and sheltered enclosure my husband built outdoors (one cat with a single eye, another with non-contagious respiratory issues, etc. – we pay for all surgeries and medical care); and we manage, (trap-neuter-return/vaccinate/feed) a colony of 11 more. We adopt out cats whenever possible to good homes. We help a little with a low-cost spay-neuter clinic in our town, which has been organized by a fantastic core of people who put amazing hard work into their dream.
Last year we visited Yellowstone and were enthralled by what we saw- and throughout the winter were horrified by Montana's harrassing treatment and slaughter of the wild bison. I wrote an article for Science and Spirit Magazine (now renamed Search Magazine; I'll send a copy of the article to anyone interested) about the bison's plight. We support the fabulous Buffalo Field Campaign, people who are on the front lines in Yellowstone– and heroes of mine.
I could give other examples. The point is, I see beauty in these animals and believe in their right to exist without suffering, whether they are primates or not, whether they are like us or not. What I accomplish, myself, is minimal, I realize, though I hope that through teaching and writing I sometimes impact others. What's important is the animals and their needs and I agree with you, the needs are vast.
In sum, you know, while I absolutely welcome any kind of criticism of my position- it's quite an assumption to jump to what I care or don't care about… Please keep in mind that newspapers like the Washington Post allow 800 words on a single focus, and that's it, it's that or nothing.
Thanks for your site, and for bringing all this to wider attention. I look forward to keeping up with your posts, and your thoughts. Best, Barbara King
If “irrational, amoral” is ground for denying animals the basic right to life and to be left alone, then most humans don’t qualify for those basic rights (fortunately for most humans and nonhumans, “irrational, amoral” is utterly irrelevant to whether animals have those basic rights). Isn’t it ironic that those humans, such as Russell Paul La Valle, who claim that “rationality and morality” are “necessary” to possess basic rights lack sufficient “rationality and morality” themselves to pass their own test for basic rights?
But let’s not fail to recognize LaValle’s basic rights because he unwittingly fails his own test; rather, let’s recognize the basic rights of all sentient beings, regardless of how “irrational, amoral” they happen to be.