Each week, Prospect asks a range of experts, as well as our readers, to come up with answers to the questions defining the news agenda.
This week, in a hearing before the New York Supreme Court appeals division in Albany, lawyer and leader of the Nonhuman Rights Project Steven Wise argued that "Tommy," a retired circus chimp, should be granted legal personhood, which means he would be afforded certain basic rights. While animals clearly shouldn't have the right to vote or be subject to our laws, the debate forces us to question the way we define ourselves and treat the natural world.
This week's Big Question is edited by Josh Lowe and Jeremy Gordon
This week, in a hearing before the New York Supreme Court appeals division in Albany, lawyer and leader of the Nonhuman Rights Project Steven Wise argued that "Tommy," a retired circus chimp, should be granted legal personhood, which means he would be afforded certain basic rights. While animals clearly shouldn't have the right to vote or be subject to our laws, the debate forces us to question the way we define ourselves and treat the natural world.
Yes, with a but
Intelligent animals should have the same basic rights as humans. That is, they should have the same rights that all humans have, irrespective of age or intellectual ability. Kids don’t have the right to vote, and nor should animals. But as the Great Ape Project asserts, they should have the right to life, to liberty, and to protection from torture. These rights are not absolute. The right to liberty is compatible with keeping kids from running across busy roads, and to keeping chimpanzees in a sanctuary when they have been bred in captivity and would be unable to survive in the wild. Peter Singer, philosopherInsult to Chimps
I think this is a terrible insult to chimpanzees. I love science and will do anything to help our animals and I appreciate that our scientist are trying to understand our fellow animals. We are the guardians of this planet and we do not understand ourselves and at the moment mankind is making a right mess. I doubt if the chimpanzees relish the idea of being on the same level as some human beings. They must look on the whole scenario with horror. The whole idea is patronising and vain. Brian Blessed, Actor and animal rights campaignerSacred duty
The Biblical account of creation describes God as loving and caring for every living thing. Most Christians believe that humans have a clear responsibility to look after all of creation, which inspires our care for the environment and for animal and human rights. I'm not sure that it helps to try to define an animal as a human: that might let people off the hook of treating the rest of creation with the respect and love that it deserves. Miranda Threlfall-Holmes, Vicar of Belmont and Pittington, DurhamAnthropocentrism rules
Professor Christopher Stone’s "Should Trees Have Standing? Towards Legal Rights for Natural Objects" is one of the most influential and challenging legal articles I’ve ever read. Published in 1972, Stone invited us to imagine that nature might have “rights’ on its own account. He alerted us to the practical dilemmas of eco-consciousness, challenged our assumption that the human is necessarily at the centre of all matters legal, and offered a benchmark, allowing us to measure the extent to which we are truly willing to protect nature. “Would it be so hard to do?”, Stone asked at the conclusion of his article. It seems the answer is yes: anthropocentrism rules. Philippe Sands, British and French lawyerA luxury indulgence
When I was hatching my novel Under The Skin, before I decided to make the protagonist an alien, I toyed with the idea of making her a chimpanzee—shaved, surgically altered, clothed, then "integrated" in human society. Much of my work is about our inability to deal with the Other. Mistreatment of other species upsets me, but I think the Nonhuman Rights Project is a luxury indulgence. We urgently need to face up to the way we’re treating our fellow humans first. We are aliens from each other, we traffic bodies, we slaughter each other like cattle. Michel Faber, novelistThis week's Big Question is edited by Josh Lowe and Jeremy Gordon
Reader responses
@Prospector_UK the right to vote? That would be interesting.
— James Galley (@jagalley) October 10, 2014
@prospect_uk yes, long past time. Unintelligent animals too. It's sentience, not sapience that should be the necessary condition for rights.
— Dr. Steve Cooke (@SteveCooke) October 10, 2014
