Legal Rights for Animals?
June 7, 2002
by Tom Purcell
It's
the kind of talk they give here in Washington, D.C.
Steve Wise
is a lawyer and the author of the book "Drawing
the Line: Science and the Case for Animal Rights." His talk a week
back was on a controversial subject: Why some animals should be given
legal rights. I read about it in the Washington Post.
"Certain
species are capable of complex emotions, can communicate using language,
and have a sense of self," said Wise. "I don't see a difference between
a chimpanzee and my 4 1/2-year-old son."
If that's
the case, sir, then perhaps your son could use a shave. And a banana.
Wise said
that some species should be given rights because they are similar to humans.
He says chimps, for instance, have complex social interactions. They use
tools, count, do sign language (at a 4-year-old human's level) and demonstrate
an idea of the future, while remembering the past.
He says that
when you give a mirror to an orangutan, he uses it to explore parts of
his body he can't see otherwise. This indicates a sense of self, he says.
It's also a sign that orangutans have too much free time on their hands.
The dolphin
is a fine animal. The dolphin can solve problems, cooperate with humans
in complex ways, distinguish sense from nonsense and imitate behavior.
Dolphins also have a sense of self, but, without opposable thumbs, I guess
they are unable to hold onto a mirror to prove it.
The African
elephant demonstrates highly evolved emotions, memory and learning ability,
says Wise. This is why, I guess, an elephant hardly ever steps in its
own dung - at least not twice.
That brings
us to the gorilla. Wise says that gorilla and human DNA are 97.7 percent
identical. Gorillas use tools, solve problems, imitate, pretend, even
use deception to get their way, he says.
Hey, so do
most members of Congress, but we don't write special laws to protect them.
Wise even
makes the case for the honeybee. After reviewing research on the matter,
he learned that honeybees "have the second most complex natural language
after human beings." They do?
Honeybee:
"Bzzz, bzzz, bzzz."
Human translation:
"Bzzz, bzzz, bzzz."
Perhaps the
complex natural language of honeybees is one reason we encourage our elementary
school students to participate in "spelling bees."
Anyhow, after
setting out his evidence that some animals are like humans, what does
Wise want? He wants them to have, in lawyer terminology, "basic rights
of bodily integrity and bodily liberty."
Human translation:
A species that is given legal rights could no longer be viewed as a thing.
Zoos and carnivals would not be able to detain and use animals for entertainment
purposes. And medical labs would not be allowed to use them for testing.
"You have
an anencephalic child born with no brain and we give that child a whole
panoply of rights," says Wise. "And you have animals… who have complex
and bright minds and they're treated like chairs."
That's not
entirely true. We don't eat chairs.
On one hand,
Wise, and other animal activists, are motivated by compassion, and that
is not a bad thing. In a civilized society, we protect the weak and ensure
the rights and dignity of every human. I see nothing wrong with showing
respect for other beings. (Except for bugs. I hate bugs.)
But what
does trouble me about this rights-for-animals concept is how it attempts
to elevate animals to the status of humans, which is absurd. When was
the last time you saw a dolphin do calculus, construct a bridge or bilk
other dolphins out of their life savings?
Only humans
have moral capacity, the free will to do right or wrong. We are, said
Mark Twain, the only animals who blush - or who need to.
"Notice no
one is expecting animals to be kind, compassionate, considerate of their
own victims, stop being carnivorous if they are, and so forth," said Tibor
Machan, a philosopher and professor of business ethics, in the Post article.
"That's because the only moral animals are human beings."
Look, Wise
and other animal rights people are going the wrong way entirely. Instead
of extending new rights to animals, shouldn't we first consider limiting
the rights we already give to some humans?
I remember
the story of one fellow some years back who tied heavy-duty weather balloons
to his lawn chair. If I remember correctly, he was spotted by a 747 -
at cruising altitude.
And yet this
fellow still has the right to vote.
Tom Purcell
Tom Purcell is a nationally
syndicated columnist. Visit his website here.
|