Introduction
 |
| Luckily for them, Apes don't need to do much accounting |
Now
this might seem like a weird one to some people. What? Extending
personhood to apes?
It
is not strange to have such a reaction to this notion. The serious
consideration of this idea, by anyone not an academic working in the
field of bio-ethics or some kind of really rad environmentalist, is
not much older than I am myself.
One
of the first organizations founded to work for great apes' right to
personhood was the ”The Great Ape Project” which was founded in
1993.
There
are many ways in which it is possible to argue for the notion that
personhood should be extended to some other animals. In particular
the four species of apes we call great apes or Hominidea. These four
species
are orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos. These species are
at first thought the most similar non-human animals to us both
physically and psychologically for good reason. They are our closest
relatives.
The
origin of the debate of extending personhood to these species is an
ethical one, but the arguments the advocates use are based on
scientific research and observation along with the ethical arguments
and logical conclusions that can be amassed from the evidence of both
sentience and sapience that these species very probably inhabit.
This
essay is supposed to be a scientific one and therefore both
scientific evidence and ethical arguments will be used to make my
position clear on the subject at hand.
I
also presume I should make myself clear. Personally I am in favor of
personhood being extended and I favor the general improvement of both
animal and human rights. My purpose with this essay is as will
probably be seen to both inform and if possible convince the reader
of my position. I must therefore disclose that it is not my purpose
to be neutral, but to be as objective as possible.
Why
Apes?
As
was previously mentioned I will only discuss great apes here, sadly
this might exclude some other animals whose capabilites are not far
from that of great apes like elephants and dolphins.
This
is for several reasons and not completely arbitrary.
Firstly
there is the amount of research conducted on apes by primatologists,
psychologists and the like. Which has provided us with more data and
evidence than we have for many other species which might be
considered candidates as well.
Secondly
we have the simple and unrefutable situation which we find the great
apes to be in at the moment. All species of great ape except for
humans
are at risk of extinction. Though Gorillas (Who have several
problems, including the Ebola virus and severe poaching) and the
Sumatran orangutans are at the greatest current risk of extinction
who as well enjoy the immense privilege of extensive pouching and the
habitat destruction that afflicts all species of great ape currently.
Almost all of these reasons are human caused in some way or the
other. Here we could argue that we have some responsibility towards
these animals and others affected by our own species' actions.
Thirdly
we have the support apes currently have and, as cheesy as it might
sound, the special place many of us hold in our hearts towards apes.
We simply like our close relatives, we tend to find them intensely
charming and interesting. Some more, some less. Along with this is
the fact that because of the proximity of our relation to the other
great apes it's much more likely that they share enough of our
capabilities to be considered persons. What finally matters is that
there is an actual practical chance of changes being made to
legislation and the common views held by many when it comes to great
apes using this set of arguments.
Speciesism
We
have all heard of racism and sexism. Speciesism is similar but refers
to biases and prejudices held by one species in regard of another.
An example of a speciesist view would be the opinion that humans are
superior to other animals simply by being human. In other words it
is the bias that human interests are more important than those of
other species simply because they are human interests and therefore
superior.
It
is very similar to sexists favoring their own gender's interests in
favour of other genders concerns and needs, nationalists'
overriding the interests of other nations in favor of their own and
racists' view that their races needs are more important than that of
other races.
How
does this relate to the question of personhood for non-human animals.
Well it is quite clear to us that a member of the species Homo
Sapiens that is so mentally underdeveloped that they cannot make use
of, understand or learn language and other modes of expression
is still in some fundamental way a person. Why is it so that for
instance a chimpanzee is not considered a person when its mental
faculties are in some ways superior to the least developed humans. Is
it possible to defend such a view in spite of the evidence I hope to
provide against it?
What
is a person?
The
word person can be interpreted in quite a lot of different ways.
Person in its common usage is synonymous to human being in most
cases. This is too simplistic a view to be useful for this discussion
and also when looked at from a historical perspective, wrong.
There
are two ways of viewing the use of the word person in a philosophical
context. The first is descriptive, where we use the word to describe
a being with certain qualites which, for lack of a better word, makes
them ”humanoid”. The second and more important use is to describe
a being with certain ethical rights which a non-person would not
necessarily need. The requirements for personhood differ between
ethical views, but the ones I find to be most useful and correct are
these: self-awareness, continuous consciousness over time and an
ability to think rationally to some degree.
Self-awareness
I presume to be quite self explanatory, the being is able to
understand that it is a single being but also understands that it is
a ”person”.
Continuous
consciousness over time is the ability to understand not only that
you are a single being but also that you are a continuous being.
Simply put. When you awake in the morning you know that you are the
same person who went to sleep the night before, your identity remains
the same. A being without this ability does not see itself as a
continous long term consciousness, it is able to understand that it
exists but not as a continuous being over time. When it awakes after
sleep it does not identify with the being that went asleep. They
probably have ”hard wired” memories and instincts but lack the
capacity for long term continuous memories of itself or its life.
The
ability to think rationally can be defined as an ability to think
about problems to find solutions or to compare different experiences
with each other. It simply means the ability to think about things
and not only base reactions on instincts and emotions.
There
are degrees to these abilities and the lines are often blurred and
uncertain.
What
is personhood good for?
What
makes this combination of mental qualities ethically important? It
is easy to understand that a being with these abilities may take harm
from a lot of different ways of treatment than a being that lacks
them. They are often able to remember the ills done to them and are
therefore not only affected in the short term in ways of suffering,
it leaves a negative impact in the long term as well. In addition to
the impacts it leaves in the hard wired memories and instincts that
non-persons have, it also as results in lasting impacts on their
personalities and preferences. Negative or not, this is relevant.
There
are also a lot more preferences that might become relavant. As a
person can have long term preferences while non-persons in general
are incapable of such interests. You as a person are capable of
wanting to become a doctor in the future etc. A non person only has
short term preferences like: a need for food, reproduction and the
avoidance of suffering.
There
are more ways of benefiting and harming persons than there are when
it comes to-non persons. That is why it is important to realize this
and act accordingly when dealing with beings that are also persons.
Evidence
for self-awareness
 |
| Chimpanzee investigating itself |
Self-awareness
is not that hard to test on beings capable of language, you can ask
questions and see if they have are capable of forming a concept of
self from how they express themselves. Apes however(except in some
cases) do not have a language they can use. Consequently we must use
other methods to ascertain this ability from them, many of the tests
used are similiar or the same as the ones used in studies about
self-awareness in human babies.
The
most common test is the mirror test, which is based around the
subject recognizing itself in a mirror and behaviors connected to
that.
To
pass the mirror test the being in question goes through several
stages of recognition of itself. The great apes that have passed the
test will just like babies(of about 18 months of age) show confusion
at seeing themselves for the first time. After some time they do
however understand that the ape they are seeing is themselves and
will react accordingly. They start investigating themselves and will
react to things one can only notice with difficulty without a mirror,
such as spots painted on them in their sleep.
Professor
Philippe Rochat has defined five levels of
self-awareness that can be derived partly from the mirror test. These
ranks from no self awareness (level 0) to explicit self
awareness(level 5). His distinctions goes as follows:
Level
0: Confusion. At this level the individual has a degree of zero
self-awareness. This person is unaware of any mirror reflection or
the mirror itself. They perceive the mirror as an extension of their
environment. Level 0 can also be displayed when an adult frightens
themselves in a mirror mistaking their own reflection as another
person just for a second.
Level
5: Self-consciousness or "meta" self-awareness. At this
level not only is the self seen from a first person view but its
realized that it’s also seen from a third person’s view. They
begin to understand they can be in the mind of others. For instance,
how they are seen from a public standpoint.
The
results of the studies that have been made show that the great apes
are at least capable of achiving level 3 of self-awareness. The lack
of long time research makes it hard to make definitive statements
about level 4 and 5. In the few cases that long time studies have
been performed on for example the previously mentioned Koko, it seems
possible that at least she is capable of level 4 and quite possibly
level 5 of self-awareness. The studies are simply not conclusive
enough yet.
Personhood
does not necessarily require the most advanced level of self
awareness, but some level must be present. All levels are not
required to pass the mirror test.
All
species of great ape have individuals capable of passing the mirror
test. The mirror test is regarded as a valid test but some question
it as a standard for the proving self-awareness.
It
is also possible to study self awareness neurologically though
looking at specific parts of the animals brains and the activity
going on there. Because of the difficulty of getting an ape to stay
in a brain scanning device this has not been done extentively yet.
The research that has been done has largely been positive.
Evidence
for continous consciousness
This
kind of consciousness is very hard to prove through experiments and
because of that we must rely mostly on observations and long term
studies. We have already discussed consciousness and self
consciousness. Continous consciousness is entwined with these
abilities and is the ability to have both the aforementioned qualites
connected during a lifetime and to experience the self as a
continous and single ”thing”.
The
long term study of Koko has shown that she is capable of being
affected by experiences that has happened to her a long time ago when
mentioning them to her. An example of this is her expressed ”sadness”
when she heard that Robin Williams had died. She had been visited by
Williams in 2003 and they supposedly formed a special bond during
that time. When Williams died in 2014 she was informed of his passing
and expressed sadness though both sign and body language.
This
can be seen as evidence of gorillas' abilities to identify with
themselves over time. It can also be seen as evidence that Apes have
the kind of emotions that can also be seen as evidence of personhood
or at least of the kind of social and emotional intelligence that
comes as a consequence of the abilities tied to personhood.
Evidence
of rationality
When
studying the different species of great apes, scientists have many
times been dumbfounded by their abiliy to solve problems and their
learning capabilites. Give an orangutang a stick or bunch of boxes
and something desirable that is placed out of their reach and they
will surely poke it down or stack the boxes so that it is reachable.
This is evidence of basic rationality, they can solve simple
problems. Different species, most commonly chimps, bonobos and
orangutans are known for making tools to solve different problems
including the aforementioned type or to kill rivals.
We
have also been able to teach them basic mathematical sequencing and
sign language to individuals of different species.
I
have mentioned Koko and Washoe as being two individuals that have
learned sign language to different degrees. Both apes where able to
sequence words to convey meaning but no apes have been able to
understand or learn grammar as of yet.
As
more of a fun fact, it is also possible to teach chimps the basics of
chess.
These
things point to some degree of rationality being present in these
animals. More examples can be given but the ones present are in my
view enough to show this.
Other
qualites linked to personhood
We
are closing in to the conclusion of this essay and before we end this
i'd like to mention a few other things we can link to personhood.
The
social hierarchies of great apes and their levels of social
intelligence are things worth considering. They are complex and
advanced with large differences between species and groups. The
bonobos are matriarchical and solve many of their problems through
sex and sometimes outright orgies. The Chimps are patriarchical and
solve their problems by fighting and sometimes what we might call
outright murder of their rivals and even ”war” between different
groups. Resulting in the killing of males and the ”raping” of
females. This sounds all too human, but our species lands somewhere
in the middle of these two approaches.
As
a result of this they are socially very intelligent. Capable of the
kind of relationships and schemes that we can otherwise only observe
among humans.
They
take care of their offspring in ways resembling humans and they
sometimes kill rivals with the dedication we only see in humans.
These good and bad sides are quite sure signs of personhood.
Conclusions
I
hope that if I have not convinced you, the reader, of my position,
that I at least have given you some food for thought. Animal rights
and how we treat these and other animals are very important issues
for me and I hope that they will become so for some of you, if they
are not already.
The
issue of great ape personhood is not only important because it will
help to benefit these animals but also it helps us to hopefully
understand that we are not that far away from other animals. It is
not a question of great gaps, it is a question of small degrees. If
we understand this, we can hopefully start to make the world a better
place for as many beings as possible.
Sources
Vidoes
and lectures:
Books,
articles, sites and wikipedia(sadly)
Peter
Singer: Practical ethics pages 48-71&123-155.
Peter
Singer: Animal Liberation.
