Apes are not monkeys

But then again, philosophers don’t tend to be zoologists.

Today’s dilemma takes us into the world of higher primates. Two chimpanzees are taught to communicate with each other and do so at a basic level. One day, Samuel disappears because he’s being used in an experiment which involves dicing up his brain. (Gordon Ramsey’s Chimp Chow Special!) Albert goes on hunger strike, and their trainer, Felicity, take the whole matter to court.

Albert uses sign language to present his case, but the defence counsel argues that

1. It’s inappropriate to ascribe human emotions and understanding to animals.
2. The use of Samuel in some experiment benefits people.
3. Albert, a chimpanzee, is asking for human rights, which would mean that animals would have rights over and above humans.

I’d agree with the defence counsel. The evidence is against Albert because chimps don’t communicate in the same way humans do unless humans have taught them. It appears they have the potential for sophisticated communication, but this isn’t realised in the wild. Language is a trait peculiar to humans. Secondly, there are more than a few instances of chimps ripping the arms off overinquisitive children. Although we know chimpanzees are intelligent creatures, they’re still bestial. In one of David Attenborough’s documentaries, a group of chimps was filmed hunting down some monkey and tearing it to pieces.

Nature, though I need remind no one, is a brutal place. Humans certainly and sadly aren’t above brutality themselves. They might be considered worse for being brutal when there’s no purpose and thus no benefit in their behaviour (though we aren’t perpetually governed by instinct).

However, this is not to say that animals shouldn’t have some rights. For example, they shouldn’t generally be subject to treatment which causes them distress and undue suffering. But if we were to confer rights on animals which approached the rights of human beings, where is the cut-off point? Chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-outangs are the most likely candidates to enjoy greater rights, but monkeys (which have tails) might be considered too far removed from us. What about domesticated animals which have utilitarian uses (e.g. farm animals) and pets? Farmers don’t breed the former for amusement and people don’t keep the latter as a food source. Thus our regard for the animal in question determines just how much consideration we might afford it.

Albert remains unhappy tomorrow and should be thoroughly annoyed that Mr Cohen is still referring to him as a monkey.