His name is Matthew, he is 26 years old, and his supporters hope to take his
case to the European Court of Human Rights.
But he won't be able to give
evidence on his own behalf - since he is a chimpanzee. Animal rights activists
led by British teacher Paula Stibbe are fighting to have Matthew legally
declared a 'person' so she can be appointed as his guardian if the bankrupt
animal sanctuary where he lives in Vienna is forced to close...
...Miss Stibbe, who is from Brighton but has lived in Vienna for several years, says she is not trying to get the chimp declared a human, just a person.
A seemingly good idea, if not rather comical, for a seemingly good cause. I hate to see animals used and abused. But the attempt to declare an animal a person- not a good idea, not comical, and, in fact, it's quite ominous.
It is becoming an accepted idea, as evidenced by those who believe that even animals can be people, that there is a difference between a person and a human. So, with this reasoning, 'human being' doesn't automatically mean 'person', and, therefore, not every human being is afforded automatic human rights for simply being human, unlike 'persons', including the right to life.
This is what some animal rights activist such as Peter Singer want, for animals to be acknowledged as persons, while at the same time denying the existence of personhood for some people, such as the fetus, infants, and children and adults with profound cognitive disabilities.
Here's an example of his thinking from the story "An Ethical Man":
"'HIV research using chimps has not been very helpful as they don't seem to get
the disease in the same way humans do,' Singer explains. 'So I don't think it's
right and it's causing a lot of suffering and distress to beings who are
sensitive animals--social animals who should be living in social groups and who
suffer being in isolation and confined and that's wrong. If we need beings very
like us to do this on, we should perhaps [turn to] the families of people who
tragically have been brain-damaged and have no hope of recovery from persistent
vegetative state who are totally beyond suffering because they are beyond
consciousness."
5 comments:
Agreed with Peter Singer. It does make sense. Personhood is not species related but rather it is related to particular properties such as consciousness. With that in mind not all humans a persons and some higher, non-humans animals maybe.
Why should we put a healthy, conscious chimp in a cage and run experiments on it and deny that we could be using humans in a persistent vegetative state for that purpose. The later is preferable both from an ethical and even scientific point of view.
It is ethically preferable because beings in a persistent vegetative state have no interests (their families may have interests, but the being itself) while a conscious chimp does have the interest not to be caged, at least.
The use of humans in a persistent vegetative state is scientifically preferable because it will most likely display more accurate results as the researchers would not have to account for crossing biological species boundaries in their research.
I am sorry but I have to say that one must be very narrow minded to deny that Peter Singer's argument make sense.
Hello, Anonymous, thanks for stopping by. I do agree Peter Singer's arguments make sense, but lots of untruths make sense in our fallen, human minds.
'Beings', as you call them, HUMAN beings, no longer aware of their surroundings or even of themselves, are no less deserving of dignity or of life. That is simply because they are human, created by God in His image, and according to His purposes.
You spoke of narrow-mindedness. How can the idea that personhood, with all the rights and dignity afforded to it, be defined based only on something like 'consciousness'? This seems to be a pretty limited view as well. Yet is seems to be reconstructing the entire field of medical ethics.
We may disagree on this one.
Do you have a friend or loved one who has been in a situation of cognitive loss? Do you have any personal history with these issues? I'd like to know your story behind your thoughts.
Again, thank you for stopping by.
You make the conclusion: "HUMAN beings, no longer aware of their surroundings or even of themselves, are no less deserving of dignity or of life."
And then provide the premise that, "That is simply because they are human, created by God in His image, and according to His purposes."
However, you do not provide evidence that your premise is true. In fact, there is no real evidence that your premise is true. One must rely on a particular faith in order to accept your premise.
On the other hand, Peter Singer provides reasons and arguments based on concrete properties (consciousness and sentience) in order to provide his conclusions. Such arguments can appeal to everyone while your arguments can only appeal to those who share your particular faith.
Luckily I do not have a loved one who has suffered cognitive loss –that would be a very sad situation. It would be sad because major, permanent cognitive loss would be like losing the person I love. The body is just biological function, not the person, personality, relevance, etc...
I am interested in ethics because it is, by definition, the most relevant aspect of our lives. It has to do with how we ought to live and engage with others. Bioethics is one of the most relevant sub-areas of the field of ethics since it deals with very important decisions about our lives. My conclusions about these topics are not fruit of faith, instead, they are fruit of intellectual labor.
What is your story?
Hello, it is me again. I hope I am not bothering you by posting so much on your blog.
One thing that I forgot to say is that when you mentioned: "I do agree Peter Singer's arguments make sense, but lots of untruths make sense in our fallen, human minds."
I dont know what specific cases you have in mind, but insofar that does not guarantee that Peter Singer's reasonable arguments are mistaken.
Hello, again.
Well, you won't find a lot of intellectual labor here on my part-that's not quite my forte :) No, my thoughts and feelings about these issues ARE based on my faith. On his blog found at this web address, http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/blogger.html , Wesley J Smith gives a lot of intellectual reasoning for what he calls human exceptionalism, an explanation for the intrinsic value of human life.
My story is that I have had friends all my life with developmental disabilities, and I have worked in direct support working with men and women with developmental disabilities and, now, the elderly for 8 years. I have worked with some individuals who have had disabilities as severe as Terri Schiavo's, and became aware of the acceptance of ideas of euthanization, etc., through her story. So, I come from a viewpoint of friend and caregiver of those like Mrs. Schiavo.
More than that, I come from a viewpoint of one who has struggled to find her identity and has found it in Christ. Acceptance and identity in Him has nothing to do with any sort of my merit or ability, but rather His grace, mercy, and love. It's how I was created- bearing His image. The same is true for all humans.
The statement I made "I do agree Peter Singer's arguments make sense, but lots of untruths make sense in our fallen, human minds" was as statement based on my faith. Human minds reason and, because of our fallen state, often err. Peter SInger's ideas and Wesley J Smith's ideas both make a lot of sense to my human mind, and they are in complete opposite agreement. I need a Truth to measure all things by, and I've chosen THE Truth, Truth Himself, Jesus.
You said because they are based on concrete properties, Peter Singer's ideas can appeal to everyone. So are the ideas of his opponents who also labor intillectually.
Okay, now my brain hurts. :)
Post a Comment