On May 27, 2015, an attorney for the Nonhuman Rights Campaign argued?in the New York County Supreme Court that two chimpanzees being used for research at Stony Brook University should be released.
The attorney, Steven Wise, lobbied that the chimps, Hercules and Leo, were “autonomous and self-determining beings” who should be granted a writ of habeas corpus, released from the university, and moved to a sanctuary in Florida. He argued that Hercules and Leo were “essentially in solitary confinement” and “that is what we do to the worst human criminal.”
Presiding over the case is Justice Barbara Jaffe.
Refuting Wise’s assertion and representing Stony Brook University is Christopher Coulston, an assistant state attorney general. Coulston argued the case was without merit, as granting chimps personhood would create a slippery slope regarding the rights of other animals.
Wise, Jaffe, Coulston, Hercules, and Leo are the major figures in what has the potential to be a groundbreaking decision. To extend habeas corpus, a legal action that grants detainees relief from unlawful imprisonment, to Hercules and Leo will fundamentally change the relationship between humans and the animal kingdom, as well as assist in a solid definition of personhood.
This is something that has to be done.
The saga of Hercules and Leo has added fuel to an ongoing ethical dilemma: what constitutes personhood? Commonly, personhood is gauged using metaphysics, the study of the nature of reality. While there exists no?absolute consensus on what criteria justifies personhood, several factors are commonly taken into consideration:
- Whether the being is rational or possesses logical reasoning ability
- Whether the being exhibits consciousness
- Whether the being exhibits self-awareness (understanding one’s thoughts, beliefs, sensations, mental states)
- Whether the being can effectively communicate
- Whether the being possesses an ability to initiate action
- Whether the being possesses the ability to make moral judgments
- Whether the being exhibits intelligence
Furthermore, consideration is given to whether the above criteria must be met in full or if there exists a minimum that can be achieved while still achieving personhood. Chimpanzees fulfill the criteria, and as such, habeas corpus should be granted, if not full rights. They are rational and possess logic. They are conscious and self-aware. They possess inter- and intra-species communication skills, they have initiative, have morals, and display high levels of intelligence.
The problem rests in the American legal definition of personhood.
The United States has a very broad definition of what is considered a “legal person,” encompassing not just human beings, but also including non-sentient institutions like corporations, labor unions, and partnerships. On that reasoning alone, granting habeas corpus to Hercules and Leo should be a no-brainer. For example,?Hobby Lobby is merely an empty husk without the employees that drive it, meaning Hobby Lobby, as an entity in itself, is not capable of any metaphysical qualifier for personhood. Logically, any entity more capable of consciousness, awareness, rationalism, and intelligence than Hobby Lobby should immediately be granted personhood?if consistency means anything.
Unfortunately, this is not the case, and the inconsistency in defining personhood creates a host of mind-bending, and in some cases profoundly disturbing, consequentialist outcomes.
Another school of thought regarding personhood is moral in nature, driven primarily by theologian philosophers. While some animals, such as great apes, cetaceans, and elephants are capable of moral judgment, countless other species are not, and as such cannot create moral communities. In moral thinking, morality is baseless without a community to reinforce it. Humans are capable of moral thinking and form communities that reinforce those moral judgments (laws), and as such, are entitled to personhood.
The fundamental flaw with solely using a moral basis to determine personhood is moral basis alone creates conflict within the species, marginalizing certain groups of people. If moral basis is the sole determinant in bestowing personhood, then humans experiencing certain neuropathologies or psychopathologies, humans who are in vegetative states or comas, humans with limited developmental faculties, and even infants are automatically disqualified, for these groups, and others, lack the cognitive ability to make moral judgments. Furthermore, they lack full self-awareness
The only means of rationalizing this without resorting to speciesism, or “human supremacy,” is to characterize organisms in terms of capability. Is the subject?capable?of achieving morality? Are they?capable?of self-awareness? Are they capable of personhood?
If personhood is granted to an entity capable of these things, personhood must be given to an entity that exhibits these things?if consistency means anything.
Ultimately, the decision regarding whether or not to grant habeas corpus to Hercules and Leo will set the stage for the future of animal rights conversations. Either Justice Jaffe will grant habeas corpus to the chimps, freeing them from their captivity and setting a precedent that certain animals cannot be, for lack of a better word, “imprisoned,” or Jaffe won’t grant habeas corpus and the current system will remain intact until the next challenge comes along.
Here’s to hoping the right side of history wins out.
-Chimpanzee.JPG){kind=link}