Tommy the Chimp: Blissfully Unaware He's Not Human

The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court in Albany has ruled that Tommy the chimpanzee is not entitled to basic legal rights.  The court, in a moment of judicial clarity and legal sensibility rarely seen these days noted "Needless to say, unlike human beings, chimpanzees cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their action."  I’ve been waiting since I graduated from law school in 1988 for a court in the United States to make just such a ruling so I could finally clear my mind about this once and for all.

The Nonhuman Rights Project, undaunted, continues to push its downright bizarre idea that animals should be imbued with rights akin to those held by humans.  Haven’t these maniacs seen Planet of the Apes?  We lose and the chimps don’t treat us well.

On a serious note, though, the kind of thinking pushed by the Nonhuman Rights Project mutilates what it means to be human.  What follows from the Court’s ruling is the very thing that differentiates humans from chimps: rationality.  Chimps may exhibit some basic solving problem capabilities – I’m sure other animals do as well.  But we have no evidence that chimps concern themselves with whether their activities have an impact on the world around them or whether other species might be affected by their decision making or even whether chimps have any thoughts much beyond their own survival.  People, on the other hand, have a capacity, used or not, to engage in speculative thoughts about how their actions will percolate into the future.  We are, as the court notes, held responsible for the actions to which our thoughts lead.  We are responsible because the law insists, even in the face of morbid stupidity and irrationality, that people are capable of rational thought.  We don’t hold chimps responsible for their actions because we simply have no evidence chimps engage in such rational thinking.

The very willingness of our courts to even entertain the discussion about whether chimps should have rights explicitly and clearly demonstrates why humans have rights and chimps don’t.  There has never been any evidence presented that any chimp cared one whit about whether human beings had rights or not.  There is utterly no reciprocation here.  The very fact that goofballs like the Nonhuman Rights Project can even exist shows a willingness among humans to tolerate all kinds of silliness in the name of kindness.  We give such organizations a chance to present their case for the very reason that we are rational and want to make sure we make good decisions about our actions and the consequences of those actions.  Chimps at the zoo, or in Africa, don’t get together for a colloquium entitled: Close Enough: Horseshoes, Hand-Grenades, and Humans, Why Humans Should be Called Chimps and Given Chimpanzee Rights.  They simply don’t have the intellectual or moral capacity to fathom the concept of rights.  It is a uniquely human attribute.

We don’t hold animals to any sort of culpability.  Yes, if a dog mauls a child it might be put to death.  This is not because anyone harbors ill will towards the animal or thinks the animal has acted immorally or illegally.  It’s because we just don’t want the dog to hurt another person.  It’s a purely utilitarian act, not a condemnation of the dog for behaving like a dog.  With rights come responsibility.  Think of a driver’s license.  We hold people accountable for having a driver’s license.  If you are convicted of certain offenses, you can lose the privilege.  Unlike the dog situation, a person loses his license because he is culpable and we hold him accountable.  We expect people to actually consider their actions and conform to the law because their legal rights demand legal responsibilities.  Animals cannot do this.  As a result, it is simply nonsense to suggest animals should have any legal rights.

Moreover, one has to understand that providing rights to chimps denigrates what it means to be human.  It doesn’t give chimps dignity, it denudes humans of dignity.  It says that humans are nothing special, not a peculiar species, not qualitatively different than any animal.  Human dignity arises because we are something different, something unusual, something peculiar on this planet.  Any ordinary human being recognizes this early on.  A little boy using a magnifying glass to burn a couple of ants on a hot summer sidewalk is not a serial killer.  He’s just a kid who recognizes there are gazillions of ants and frying two or three won’t likely affect the ant population or anyone on this planet.  But more fundamentally, he recognizes that there is something fundamentally different about him and the ants.  Not only is he bigger, but he can rationalize; he can think; he can plan; he can control.  The ants can’t do this.  The little boy learns a lesson that distinguishes him from ants.  As he grows up he stops burning ants on the sidewalk not because he thinks the ants have rights or even ought to have rights but because he understands it is unnecessary.  He has a conscience.  He is human and can decide he will act in ways that put off his own desires in favor of another, even if it’s an ant.

Human beings are not mere animals.  That we even consider how we treat animals at all signifies the deep divide that exists between humans and animals.  A world view that assigns human characteristics and rights to animals, no matter how smart the animal, miscomprehends what it means to be human.  We are not simply “higher beings” on the evolutionary scale.  The reason we are capable of even understanding that we are “higher beings” is because we are made in the image of the highest being: the God of the universe. 

So Tommy the Chimp remains in his circumstances.  So far as we are aware, he is perfectly content and completely unaware of the legal mechanisms which sought to secure his so-called freedom.  Doesn’t that, itself, say something?