Is it time to think things over? Chimps are people too.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
I doubt see why you would delimit based on species?

I don't believe rights are given for our survival and prosperity. Humans have survived and prospered for millenia without such rights. For many centuries the 'white species' survived and prospered and justified slavery using an analagous type of argument you gave, saying that 'blacks' were sub-human.

But why should we care about rights for chimps when they cannot even do something similar for themselves?

Oh, and I don´t mean we shouldn´t care totally about other species, I just don´t think chimps should have equal rights.

Edit: I must have been somehow on drugs yesterday, because I agreed with your 1st post. What I meant was, I gree with what you said initially ("I don't really care about the genetics or the nomenclature. What is more important is how 'human' they are in their abilities and thought processes.")

But I don´t agree what you said afterwards about their rights, because I doubt that they are really so much "human".
Just to clarify....

[Az]

I doubt see why you would delimit based on species?

Because they don't have the concept of rights, but we do. Why should rights apply to them? Rights are being applied on the basis of humanity, not intelligence. Now the former is a rather difficult concept, even more difficult than the later. But this is becides the point. It is that former concept which is a criteria for "rights".

I don't believe rights are given for our survival and prosperity. Humans have survived and prospered for millenia without such rights.

"given" is not a suitable concept. Our society has evolved to create them, in order to survive. Societies are very much like living creatures in that sense. They obey the laws of evolution.

For many centuries the 'white species' survived and prospered and justified slavery using an analagous type of argument you gave, saying that 'blacks' were sub-human.

But blacks WERE NOT SUB-HUMAN! That's the entire point. Black people ARE humans, and that's why what was done to them is so wrong.

Unless you're equating blacks with chimps. ( I know you don't I just couldn't stop myself from this little troll. )

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Zero


Given that Chimps do not have thumbs, I doubt that they really have any chance of utilizing tools. Which handicaps them from developing in the same way we did.

Also, the ability to pass on knowledge. If such ability isnt with the chimps, no matter how smart they are, they wouldnt be able to develop. Maybe they can teach a few simple tricks and pas those among generations, but unless you have some sort of complex communication system that can be preserved, you will not achieve this. Once again, in order to write something, you need an ability to utilize tools, something chimps dont have.

Untrue. I'm an anthropology major, and chimps have been known to use over 12 different types of tools for collecting food, etc. And they learn how to use the tools by observing other chimps, or in other words, but passed on knowledge. And the defintion of culture, in anthropological terms, is anything learned that is passed on from one generation to another. So there is in a sense chimp culture.

But chimps are not humans by any means. We are so similar because we are derived from the same proto-primate from millions of years ago and humans, by necessity had to become hunters and escape predators, so our brains go bigger (in a nutshell). Chimps were able to survive with a primative brain, so they never evolved a more complex one.

Chimps can achieve an intelligence level of around a 2 year old at best. But do three year old humans have rights? No, because they're so dumb they're useless... until they get older that is. Chimps don't get any smarter however. The only rights chimps should be given is the right not to be killed, which they already have in most countries.

Chimps are not humans, we are just distant relatives with about 100k years of cultural evolution ahead of them. Don't get me wrong though, they are amazingly intelligent and fascinating creature and offer us alot of insight into our distant past... but to say they are human is just an insult to us.

And chimps are too instinct driven to even be bothered with a sense of rights or morality. They just can't think on that level. While we're busy thinking of them as humans and worrying about morality, their little brains are thinking "food, food, food, tree, food, bugs, food, food, food!" Cmon now... lets stop with the silliness.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by Azazel
But blacks WERE NOT SUB-HUMAN! That's the entire point. Black people ARE humans, and that's why what was done to them is so wrong.

Unless you're equating blacks with chimps. ( I know you don't I just couldn't stop myself from this little troll. )

Counter-troll: why NOT equate blacks with chimps?

(checks flame-retardant defenses)

Here's my case:

The notion of "human rights" is a relatively recent development in Western society. There have been many human societies which lacked a concept of "human rights" applicable to ALL humans (typically, just those of the tribe). And yet we now impose a concept of "universal human rights" on other societies which lacked this concept, and we call this a "good thing".

I'm not arguing that it isn't a good thing. I'm arguing that we have never before used the existence of this concept among other peoples to determine whether they should benefit from it or not. If we discover a tribe of head-hunters in New Guinea which lack this concept: they don't get "human rights"?

If they do: why not chimps?

But something needs to be done. We can't leave chimps grouped with gorillas when their nearest relatives are humans. That would be like grouping hyenas with felines when their nearest relatives are canines. All members of a group should be more closely related with each other than with any members of another group.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

Counter-troll: why NOT equate blacks with chimps?

(checks flame-retardant defenses)

Here's my case:

The notion of "human rights" is a relatively recent development in Western society. There have been many human societies which lacked a concept of "human rights" applicable to ALL humans (typically, just those of the tribe). And yet we now impose a concept of "universal human rights" on other societies which lacked this concept, and we call this a "good thing".

I'm not arguing that it isn't a good thing. I'm arguing that we have never before used the existence of this concept among other peoples to determine whether they should benefit from it or not. If we discover a tribe of head-hunters in New Guinea which lack this concept: they don't get "human rights"?

If they do: why not chimps?

But something needs to be done. We can't leave chimps grouped with gorillas when their nearest relatives are humans. That would be like grouping hyenas with felines when their nearest relatives are canines. All members of a group should be more closely related with each other than with any members of another group.

I see what you're getting at, but all humans are still part of the homo sapien sapien species... chimps and other animals are not. They can't even fathom the idea of rights. Its all dog eat dog to them.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

I'm not arguing that it isn't a good thing. I'm arguing that we have never before used the existence of this concept among other peoples to determine whether they should benefit from it or not. If we discover a tribe of head-hunters in New Guinea which lack this concept: they don't get "human rights"?

If they do: why not chimps?

Because our concept is called "human rights" not "rights for highly civilized humans only".

Means, even head-hunters in New Guinea probably have abilities similar to us, while chimps lack them. To use JimmyCracksCorn´s words - the head-hunters can reach higher levels than those of a 2 year old child, but chimps remain on that level (if he´s right - I don´t consider me an expert here, but his post makes sense )

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by BeBro


Because our concept is called "human rights" not "rights for highly civilized humans only".

Means, even head-hunters in New Guinea probably have abilities similar to us, while chimps lack them. To use JimmyCracksCorn´s words - the head-hunters can reach higher levels than those of a 2 year old child, but chimps remain on that level (if he´s right - I don´t consider me an expert here, but his post makes sense )

Yeah, if you put a head hunter in my shoes, he'd be as intelligent as I am (not to sound cocky), likewise if you put me in the head hunter's shoes, I'd probably be pretty thick. However, if you put a chimp in Harvard, he'd still be a dumb old chimp.

[Dauphin]

How human would an a group of animals have to be to be given human rights.

Take Neanderthals as a starting model. If they were still around and showed no ability to reproduce with humans, had no way to meaningfully interact with human society, but demonstrated the same basic emotions and intelligence would they be afforded some rights?

[Zero]

Im gonna stir this topic a bit more:

What about mentally hadicapped humans? do they have human rights?

do fetus's have human rights?

[Az]

Take Neanderthals as a starting model. If they were still around and showed no ability to reproduce with humans, had no way to meaningfully interact with human society, but demonstrated the same basic emotions and intelligence would they be afforded some rights?

Not if we can't interact with them in any meaningful way ( like with other humans ). But we probably could. ( never mattered to us then, we wiped them clean. or ****ged them. in any case, they're gone. )

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
How human would an a group of animals have to be to be given human rights.

I don´t know. But see it the other way around - where to draw the line when you want to decide which animal is "human" enough, and which not?

But from what I´ve read the Neanderthals would be probably candidates for certain rights.

What about mentally hadicapped humans? do they have human rights?

do fetus's have human rights?

If one has those rights, then because of a human definition of such rights (and how far they reach) - unless you believe in god.

For example, in some ancient societies it was allowed to kill a new born child in certain cases - if you were to poor to feed it, or if it was considered "weak" or if it was disabled (is that the right expression?).

But today it is considered murder, because we changed the definition of rights. So, if the society decides to grant those rights to mentally handicapped humans, they have them.

In Germany, it is considered that a fetus is "unborn life", and should be protected. However, abortion is allowed up to a point, because the right of a woman to decide about herself is protected too. Therefore, you have to find a solution between those two important things.

[Zero]

Well I dont want to continue on with fetus (cause we will make a mess out of it).

Why I mentioned Mentally handicapped ppl is that it creates a fallacy within the definition we created here in this forum. All this time I was arguing that Chimps should have equal rights as us if they are capable of same intellectual capacity. And I believed that this was possible until JimmyCracksCorn came to us and shared his expertise and told us that this is impossible. Therefore argument based on intellectual capacity, chimps should not be granted the same rights.

But conveniently, when I was about to agree with u guys I came up with this thought Think about it. Among our own species, theres an example of an organism without the intellectual capacity as the rest of us. Yet they are treated with the same human rights. Long time ago, we didnt have the same rights for people for ended up in mental institution, but now we obviously do. So why do these people have the same rights? Im sure most of you guys feel like me as that they should have same rights as us and it is unquestionable... but where is this certainty coming from? More and more I think about it, the argument based on inteelectual capacity seems to be insignifcant if I were to say that these people have the saem rights as us.

So should this topic go into a loop and once again revisit why rights are reserved to only humankind? Is that basically the ultimate definition of who has rights? The more I probe at these question the more it is getting interesting.

[Zero]

Originally posted by BeBro

But today it is considered murder, because we changed the definition of rights. So, if the society decides to grant those rights to mentally handicapped humans, they have them.

thats interesting. Have we changed the definition of rights, or have we come to realize the term of rights better? as in did our moral and ethical reasoning mature for us to realize that Rights encompass these people as well or have we extended the border of what rights encompasses?

did black people have same rights as white before but were denied and ignored from this concept

or

Were black granted same rights when we "extended" our view who gets these rights?

[Edan]

It's a mad house! A MAD HOUSE!

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Zero
But conveniently, when I was about to agree with u guys I came up with this thought Think about it. Among our own species, theres an example of an organism without the intellectual capacity as the rest of us. Yet they are treated with the same human rights. Long time ago, we didnt have the same rights for people for ended up in mental institution, but now we obviously do. So why do these people have the same rights? Im sure most of you guys feel like me as that they should have same rights as us and it is unquestionable... but where is this certainty coming from? More and more I think about it, the argument based on inteelectual capacity seems to be insignifcant if I were to say that these people have the saem rights as us.

So should this topic go into a loop and once again revisit why rights are reserved to only humankind? Is that basically the ultimate definition of who has rights?

Our species and certain abilities play a role, but basically we have rights, because we are able to define them. Then you can say that not all humans aren´t equally able - but that doesn´t play a role to me, as long as the society decides to grant those people rights too (as we do it).

The rights we define should make sense, and in democratic societies we think more rights for all have certain advantages for the society as a whole. One could say that our society may run great too, if we deny some people certain rights, but this creates IMO more problems - where to draw the line? If only intelligence would play a role - why not grant rights only for people above IQ 100 or 500? Or only for me?

Then we have the problem of different societies - some grant other or less rights. Eg. Nazi-Germany denied Jews certain rights. How could they do it? Because they defined it that way, and had the power to implement that. Does that mean I can´t criticize it, because it was their decision? No, I think I can criticise it, because it is not only immoral from my POV, but it is also nonsense, because I don´t see any evidence why Jews would be inferior. And a society that relies that much on repression while there are others at the same time which don´t need such repression doesn´t seem to work very well.