Comments on: Austrian Courts: Chimpanzees Are Not People

By: grampagravy

grampagravy — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 02:51:18 +0000

Floyd,
It is not about the chimp. It is about the influence of superstition on the legal system.

By: floyd

floyd — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 02:08:59 +0000

If the group were serious about protecting the chimp, which they obviously were not, they could choose a qualified person to donate their money to[including the court costs]. Then that person could simply BUY the chimp and take care of it for the balance of it's life.

By: DL

DL — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:31:29 +0000

Grampygravy (love that name) "Don't you think that the whole "made in the image of god" thing is sort of weakened by the fact we are the most prolific killers on earth?" Not at all. Being made in the image of God means that we not only have high intellegence but also have free will (unlike chimps)to recognize evil( natural law and revelation) Whether we choose to follow the proper course is what determines the evil we do. It is the highest form of freedom. It is man not following the "makers manual" that is the problem - not our nature - nor our ability to either good or evil. Man inherantly, as God said is "Good" and then He rested...

By: grampagravy

grampagravy — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:22:26 +0000

DL, I would say that pointing out humans are more murderous than chimps reinforces the implications of my initial statement. Don't you think that the whole "made in the image of god" thing is sort of weakened by the fact we are the most prolific killers on earth? Maybe some of the problem lies in that arrogance, along with our self-appointed status as the arbiters of "natural law." Maybe accepting that we are just animals with huge reproductive advantages over the other animals would make us more responsible at the individual level. You know, like this is the only game we have, let's take care of it. No Great Googly to pin things on or make it all better some day in never-never land.

By: DL

DL — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:58:08 +0000

"People "behaving like animals" predates anything taught in schools today. In fact it predates schools." True enough grampagravy, but I haven't yet heard of chimps murdering over 50 million of their own children recently. We are trying hard to eradicate civilization by rejecting natural law and we'll pay for it dearly.

By: yetanotherjohn

yetanotherjohn — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:53:57 +0000

Wouldn't the simpler answer be to fund the shelter that was going bankrupt? Rather than spending money of 'novel' legal theories.

By: grampagravy

grampagravy — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:38:51 +0000

People "behaving like animals" predates anything taught in schools today. In fact it predates schools.

By: DL

DL — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:36:37 +0000

This is not about how human chimps are but just more of the confused attempt to lower man to the level of animals and deny his unique and precious character (made in the image of God)

It all reminds me of the texts still being use in today's schools where nature is still taught as -"there's no difference between a boy, a dog and a rat."(bidiversity) small wonder that people are behaving as they are -like...er...animals!

By: mainline

mainline — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 06:39:38 +0000

I'm probably a little sketchy on the legal terminology being used here but I beleive the term "person" is being used to mean a being deserving of certain rights (currently given only to humans). This would satisfy dictionary.com's 4th definition of a person: 4. Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being. So I'm not sure that the semantics being promoted by the litigating group are "unscientific". Apes are surly conscious of there existence and are are rational (though not as intelligent as humans of course) When determining whether an organism has an interest in not suffering I think the only characteristic it needs is sentience. Also, if an organism has an interest in not suffering then that interest should be protected or we would be contradicting ourselves. Considerations such as how much humans can sometimes be like animals and vice-versa, an animals ability to reason, use language, etc..., aren't important. We protect the rights of infants and the mentally enfeebled without regard to their intellects because we understand they are sentient. To be consistent with our ethics, we must do the same for all animals not just humans.