How "smart" are animals? What do they "feel"? And how much of the differences between us are nature vs nurture?
A fascinating research project demonstrates that chimps are "smarter" than humans in some ways: two chimps beat two humans in a game of memory and strategy.
Lucy the chimp was raised in a human household, and could make and serve tea. Koko the Bonobo could sign hundreds of words and could take care of pets.
In the US, we still do scientific testing on chimps, though it is increasingly outlawed in other parts of the world...
As we find out more about the intelligence of animals (and the Great Apes in particular), I think we are increasingly moving in the right direction by prohibiting research on these animals. However, I think this is still a difficult question and not as simple as Peter Singer, perhaps the greatest advocate for the Great Apes, makes it seem.
As a utilitarian, Peter cares about actions that maximize total welfare. But in that calculation, how would Peter weigh Great Apes against humans? If testing 1 ape could save 1 human, would he be for it? What about testing 2 apes to save 1 human? What is the exchange rate in his mind and how did he derive said exchange rate?
Peter notes that the mental capabilities of apes can often be superior than that of children and mentally disabled people. But if intelligence and emotive capacity are his point of comparison and not speciesism, then another question arises: if human privileges are extended to apes, should human responsibilities also be extended to apes? What happens if an ape commits a human crime? Should it be treated similar to a mentally disabled person?
A fascinating research project demonstrates that chimps are "smarter" than humans in some ways: two chimps beat two humans in a game of memory and strategy.
Lucy the chimp was raised in a human household, and could make and serve tea. Koko the Bonobo could sign hundreds of words and could take care of pets.
In the US, we still do scientific testing on chimps, though it is increasingly outlawed in other parts of the world...
As we find out more about the intelligence of animals (and the Great Apes in particular), I think we are increasingly moving in the right direction by prohibiting research on these animals. However, I think this is still a difficult question and not as simple as Peter Singer, perhaps the greatest advocate for the Great Apes, makes it seem.
As a utilitarian, Peter cares about actions that maximize total welfare. But in that calculation, how would Peter weigh Great Apes against humans? If testing 1 ape could save 1 human, would he be for it? What about testing 2 apes to save 1 human? What is the exchange rate in his mind and how did he derive said exchange rate?
Peter notes that the mental capabilities of apes can often be superior than that of children and mentally disabled people. But if intelligence and emotive capacity are his point of comparison and not speciesism, then another question arises: if human privileges are extended to apes, should human responsibilities also be extended to apes? What happens if an ape commits a human crime? Should it be treated similar to a mentally disabled person?
No comments:
Post a Comment