Discovery Institute - Article Database

Link to Original Article

There's more than a whiff of hypocrisy that the land of bullfighting wants to become the world's leading defender of animal rights. The Spanish Parliament's environment committee passed a resolution last month urging the government to endorse the Great Ape Project.

Founded 15 years ago, this international organization calls for a "community of equals to include all great apes." That "community" would comprise chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, orangutans and, yes, you dear reader. Such a move would not raise the status of animals so much as it would diminish that of humans.

If the government in Madrid follows the committee's recommendation, Spain will become the first country to accord apes the rights to life, liberty and protection from torture. In practical terms, that would mean, among other things, that apes would be barred from circuses and, perhaps, zoos. They would also be prohibited from participating in scientific research -- a move that would put the welfare of apes above the quest for human lifesaving drugs.

The rights campaigners point out that apes share about 95% of our DNA. They argue that apes possess certain human characteristics, including emotions resembling love and hate, the ability to use tools, and communication skills. Many scientists, though, question the evidence showing the great apes' alleged human-like qualities; only humans, they point out, can understand the concepts of right and wrong and be morally conflicted. In any case, we also share about 90% of DNA with mice but no one (so far) has suggested bestowing special rights on them. Societies are right to set high standards for the treatment of animals, and doing so may even encourage us to be more considerate to each other. The Great Ape Project, though, is likely to have the exact opposite effect. Insisting on rights for great apes elevates animals to our ethical realm and in turn dehumanizes humans. Rather than promoting moral behavior toward man and ape alike, it helps justify treating humans like animals.

Princeton Professor Peter Singer, a co-founder of the Great Ape Project, wants to "break down the barriers between human and nonhuman animals." Denying rights to animals is "speciesism," he says, a prejudice resembling racism.

This is the same Peter Singer who is already notorious for rejecting the notion that human life is sacred. Instead, his utilitarian philosophy has led him to condone the killing of certain handicapped infants up to a month after birth, and, under some conditions, of elderly people no longer able to think for themselves.

The singularity and sanctity of human life is the bedrock of civilization. Where humans are no longer considered invested with an inherent dignity, it quickly leads to the destruction of "undesirable" life.

Infanticide and euthanasia a la Singer are at one end of this spectrum. At the other end is mass murder. The victims of genocide are typically first dehumanized to justify their killing, often by likening them to animals. The Nazis compared the Jews to rats; the Tutsis in Rwanda were likened to cockroaches.

We have a responsibility to diminish animal suffering -- a responsibility that derives from our unique human rights. Claiming these rights for animals as well is no moral victory but a slippery slope toward moral relativism.