Horizon on BBC2 a few weeks ago, dealt with a good topic, in an uncharacteristically bad fashion. All in all Horizon seems to have been 'blanded down' in its latest series, and while an enjoyable watch, the new light hearted presentation style was matched by unserious substance.
Danny Wallace, an amusing enough presenter, had replaced for this episode at least, the sombre narrative voice over of previous series. Fittingly, the whole program seemed to be more a presentation of emotive persuasion, than of serious argument, though to be fair, it wasn't actually claiming it's points to be proofs as such.
The basic theme of the program was that we share so many things with chimps, even whopping 99.4% of our DNA, that we should really consider them (and other apes), 'people' too.
At first glance, there did seem to be a decent case to make. No one could honestly see the antics and awareness of the various non-human primates shown, and not consider them to be somehow closer to us than 'mere' animals. The feats of cooperation, intelligence, and even something akin to language, have to be acknowledged for what they are - remarkable feats of intelligent and sentient beings. The argument being made, was that if they are so 'people-like' then why don't we face the facts and treat and label them as such.
This sounds reasonable enough, but on closer analysis I think is getting the problem completely backwards. To see this, we need to think about why we could ever want to relabel chimps as "people". It couldn't be simpy clarifying a category, since "people" as currently used, basically interchangeably with the term 'human', does undoubtedly identify a class of creatures different from chimps and other primates.
The only reason, and what I assume can only be the underlying motive behind Danny Wallace's campaign, is not that they should be considered the same as us, but that they should be treated in a similar fashion. The justification for treating people as people, seems to be based on what were considered to be exclusivly human characteristics, self-awareness, intelligence, and the capacity to suffer. The logic then would seem to be, if we discover these characteristics in other beings, then they would deserve similar treatment.
The problem seems to be, that as long as they are considered just animals, then they are treated in a way that does not befit their intelligence and awareness.
However, this I think highlight exactly where Wallace has gone wrong. The issue to me really is, if the term "animal" means a being which can be made to suffering etc, then chimps highlight something wrong with our term "animal", not our term "people". Rather than resolving our moral tangles by promoting chimps out of one category and into another, we should revise our common understanding of 'animals' , and if necessary dispel any illogical connotations.
The problem is where else would the line be drawn, and what would be the consequences. What has to be admitted, as a basic and possibly brute fact, is that as a human society, we need to accord special rights to members of that society. No matter how many picture cards a chimp can learn, or how well it recognizes itself in a mirror, it or any other animal can never be a proper member of that society. The point to realise is that the rights are not ultimately based on the characteristics of humans, but on the very fact of being members of the same club - humans. According these rights has evolved to be common practice for in my view one reason - they are 'useful'. Now whether they fit in to natural moral dispositions or whatever, having a common way of viewing each other, actually works. We know things about people based on them being called people, and this helps society to function. Most importantly, since we conside ourselves as ends in our own right, and not just means for someone else's purposes, viewing others also as 'ends' - i.e. as 'people', develops a society which is good and enjoyable for us. This is why the rights are granted based on membership of the human club alone - because it is about how we view and treat others like us, and not based on characteristics as such - which think has retrospectively become the justification
This is why we gives these rights to humans that probably have less claim on characteristic grounds than some apes - small babies, senile old people, and the mentally ill and deranged. We treat them as people even though they might be in fact considerably different to us and what we consider 'essential' to our being people - but we have to do so since they are members
of our society, and to do otherwise would cause it to break down. And of course there would be the impossible problem anyway of where to draw the line.
So we have good reasons to consider each other people - reasons that don't immediately imply we should extend the term to chimps or any other intelligent animal. This is why i think the concept of "people" must remain as it is - we are people, by definition chimps are not.
However, to me we do have a problem with "animal". Not its definition, but its connotations. Throughout history, when first of all times were considerably worse for most of mankind, and second of all when scientific knowledge was more limited, it was understandable how 'animals' would be considered completely inferior, and really only "means" for our ends.
Now however that we are both in a position to know that these beings can in fact suffer, and furthermore have options available to us to avoid or reduce causing such suffering, then I think the time is right to develop our concept of animal - not to make them people, but to view and treat them in a more respectful fashion than before.
And there is a very good reason to do so. What I truly believe is that acts of brutality, brutalize the doer. The more we allow or perpetrate brutal acts, the harsher we become,as individuals and as a society, and in the long run this is to all our detriment. If we know begin to see animals as capable of suffering, and spot sentience in their eyes, then if we continue to treat them cruelly, then I think it will have an unfortunate effect on us, and in the long run make us crueller to each other. If someone can beat a chimp, and justify it to him/herself since 'its just a chimp' - the viciousness and hate in the action is (albeit mcuh reduced) similar as if he/she were to beat a child or another person. The action is similar, but the person might be comforted by the excuse. But that viciousness I think hardens the heart, and makes for a tougher world for all of us.
And for chimps - any special treatment? Of course the fact remains that a chimp does have different characteristics, and special abilities, that differentiate it from a cow or a chicken. And these special abilities means they can suffer in special ways, ways in which a cow or chicken cannot. Thus while all animals will probably suffer pain on being beaten, a chimp with its awareness and intelligence might suffer in ways we might recognize more - being confined in a boring and restrictive environment, deprived of social contact. A cow probably does not care if it has a small piece of land to chew its cud on, an intelligent and social chimp might be driven into something similar to insanity by such conditions. And to impose them, would be to make
it suffer. Most importantly, to allow ourselves to inflict such suffering, makes us harsher and less responsive to such concerns when they manifest themselves in other people, especially those of which we are already disposed to have a lower opinion of.
Chimps are not people, they are animals. The point is they show us that we have good reason not to treat animals, like animals.
