So, it seems my nemesis Peter Singer is back at his old tricks, only this time people are listening to his crackpot ideas. I should qualify all of this animosity with the admission that I find his notions on poverty alleviation exceedingly compelling, but when it comes to his radical views on animal rights, I am not a proponent. Specifically, my own views on the rights of the mentally disabled are in sharp contrast with how Singer views this segment of the population. You see, Singer argues that animals should have at least equal rights to mentally disabled persons who are of similar or lower cognitive functioning.

Regardless of my own reasons for rejecting this notion, someone has found it plausible enough to pass a law to this effect—namely the whole fucking country of Spain. I know what you’re thinking, “Not the bastion of progress and intellectualism that spawned such global gifts as brutal inquisitions and fervent nationalism!”

Believe it, friend.

The absurdity is such that the author of the article noted the hypocrisy of defending the rights of apes while continuing to slaughter bulls in possibly the most inhumane manner possible in the name of culture and tradition. Olé indeed.

So, how is it that a left-leaning aspiring philosopher who supports rights for animals could be opposed to such a measure? Because of the inherent naïveté in granting chimpanzees the same rights as children. Unless I’m missing some crucial part of the legislation, I do not understand why it is not possible to make laws protecting the unnecessary killing or imprisonment of apes without making them equal in the eyes of the law to some humans. This might seem harmless, or even admirably progressive, but I see a host of messy quagmires awaiting Spain.

For example, if chimpanzees have the same right to life as children and a chimp kills a human, does that mean they have the right to a court trial? If so, can they then be incarcerated? How would they be said to have given themselves an adequate defense? Or, do we treat them as we treat children: by saying they are not truly capable of such heinous crimes, and so murder would not be a viable conviction? Here is yet another question: what if one chimpanzee kills another? Is that murder? Do you sentence an ape and lock it up with humans? Do you put it to death? According to the article, some chimps are known to eat rivals’ babies. How do you deal with the legal issues of this without somehow confining the apes to keep them from assaulting the infants of rivals?

My objections to this measure are similar to my objections to most of Peter Singer’s ideas, namely that they work in theory but not in practice. It is all well and good to declare apes morally akin to humans, but without working out the details, the measure comes across as half baked. I will curiously await the first bump in the road to see just how thought out the Spanish Parliament’s laws are.

–Casimir

Looks like either way we’re in for four more years of Bush policies…