Customer Reviews

Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for Animals

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

For as long as anyone can remember animals have been property of humans. Opinions differ as to why, ranging from god given rights of dominion, to levels of moral considerability, but the end result is generally the same, humans can own animals, and use them for any of a variety of purposes; no question. An animal, despite being a sentient being, in our current American legal system has no more rights to protect it from enslavement or bodily harm than say, a toaster, or a rock. Today we are learning more and more about our human place in the world, and in this investigation many are beginning to question our role as caretakers or rulers of other beings. Steven Wise is one such person. He questions the right of humans to deny sentient creatures legal personhood. What is it about humans, other than tradition and precedent, that fosters the continued enslavement and cruel treatment of nonhuman animals? In this book he focuses particularly on chimpanzees and bonobos, who are humans closest genetic relatives. Wise refers to a wide variety of philosophers, scientific findings, and legal precedents to make this book a compelling testament towards the legal personhood of nonhuman animals.
Wise begins this book by telling the story of Jerom, a chimpanzee who lived and died at the Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center. Jerom was intentionally infected with several strains of HIV over his time at the center. When Jerom was near death another chimpanzee, Nathan, was injected with Jerom's blood, which will likely (if it has not already happened) cause his death as well. Wise dedicated this book to Jerom, writing on the dedication page: For Jerom, a person, not a thing.
He continues on to write about a legal wall that exists in our society. It has been standing since the dawn of human laws, separating us humans from everything nonhuman, denying legal rights to anything not on our side of the wall. It is the goal of people like Wise and others of similar philosophies to demolish this wall and grant legal considerability to those nonhuman creatures deserving of such respect. He agrees that not all animals should have as full legal rights as a fully cognizant adult human, but that chimpanzees and bonobos in particular are deserving of protection from enslavement, and invasive bodily harm. He is not asking for chimps to be allowed to vote, but for the American legal system to recognize something other than human as a living being, something deserving of more rights than a toaster.
Wise discusses the history of common law, and its role in the development of our current system. Not so long ago different groups of humans were denied basic rights by this system, i.e. slaves, women, and other minorities. During the era of slavery in America it was nearly unheard of to consider a slave a human being. They had no legal rights, although it is apparent that they are indeed human beings. Darwin stated that only members of the same species are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, and members of different races around the world have proven that skin color has nothing to do with ones humanity. However, at the time in history the law did not recognize them, and it was up to the supporters of equality to fight within the system to attain it. Today we look back at the perpetuation of such oppression with much shame and anger. The fact that it was allowed to exist for so long fuels the indignation of the nation. Wise and those like him are hoping that someday animal enslavement will also be an unsavory relic of the past.
In the following chapters Wise supports his theories with scientific data supporting the existence of animal minds. It is impossible to prove that anything is conscious, you and I included, but science shows as closely as possible that chimpanzee and bonobo minds work in very similar ways to human brains. As nearly as we can tell they are capable of emotion, and most certainly pain and suffering. Wise uses these reasons to claim for nonhuman animals the same basic rights that we claim for humans.
Wise, despite being a lawyer, writes in a very conversational tone, inviting the reader to join him on this journey that is easily understood by non-lawyers. All of his arguments are set out in logical procession, marked with humor and some very poignant reflections. There are many strong arguments supporting this issue, but until this book appeared there had been very few resources pulling all of them together in one deeply compelling web of logic and compassion. Wise is incredibly thorough in his arguments, attacking the problem from every angle, philosophical as well as legal and scientific. Just how many different sources of opinion and fact went into the making of this book is shown somewhat by the 66 pages of citations at the end of the book. He was able to filter through ages of legal studies, as well as scientific theory to create this work, the final product being a clear and concise jewel of a book.
The issue at stake in this book is one of life and death to those concerned. It is too late for countless animals that have been forced to suffer and die in laboratories, furthering science to preserve their captors, humans. This is a tragic loss, but as long as there are authors and activists like Steven Wise, Jane Goodall, (who wrote the forward to this book) and many other dedicated individuals and groups we may live to see nonhuman animal enslavement diminished, if not eradicated. This book is setting the stage for further motions in future generations. If this generation can put holes in the wall Wise discussed early in the book, allowing some nonhuman animals to come over to our side, at least in this author's humble opinion, it is a step in the right direction.

The author's main goal is to effectively motivate the importance of establishing the legal "personhood" of chimpanzees and bonobos based on, among other things, their astounding genetic similarity to humans. His arguments are strong and convincing. Early on, the book guides the reader through the basics of modern and ancient legal systems. Later, many cases of chimpanzee and bonobo intelligence are meticulously documented. I learned a lot not only about animal cognition, but also about legal traditions. The possibilities for grand-scale changes are tantalizing. I predict this book will be the first rumble in an earthquake of changes to the way non-human animals are viewed by the law.

A book like this will inevitably generate controversy and harsh criticism. Back when women were considered inferior to men, there were countless opponents to granting all humans the right to vote regardless of gender. Similarly, people who enslaved African Americans spoke out against establishing human rights that would apply to all regardless of race; in fact many threatened or even physically harmed folks who took a view counter to their own. Along the same lines, there will be many cowardly individuals who feel falsely endangered by an argument that paves the way toward the introduction of basic rights for non-humans. But the revolution has begun.

Steven Wise has earned my profound respect. This is an excellent book.

The oxymoronically named "Wise" thinks that animal "rights" are linked to "proven intelligence". Proven to whom? To quote Wise, "It boils down to this: If they can desire, can intentionally try to fulfull desire, and possess a sense of self-sufficiency, they deserve rights". Nonsense.

Jefferson wrote that all "men" are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. While the meaning of "men" has been expanded to be more inclusive than it was held to be in 1776, I don't think it can be expanded to include dogs, cats, and rats.

Only humans are potentially moral beings, and therefore can be held morally responsible for their actions. Consequently, only humans can have rights in correlation to their civic responsibilities. A cat may see the object of its desire, let's say a mouse, and possess a sense of intentionality toward the object, i.e. the intent to catch and eat the mouse, and the will to act to carry out it's intent, but the cat possesses no moral sense that would check it's desire. Humans, on the other hand, can make moral distinctions. A human can murder another human, murder being the intentional, wilfull taking of human life by another human without justification or excuse. The human therefore also has the correlative civic right not to be murdered. We don't try cats for "murdering" mice, nor hold them liable for damages for wrongful death...at least, not yet.

Wise, and his ilk, continue to blur the distinction between man and beast that is the inevitable outcome of Rousseau's misguided romanticism. Should the law further decline into such nonsense, our already overburdened courts will be forced to hear cases of homeowners violating the property rights of cockroaches and coyotes, and perhaps the courts will appoint a Guardian ad Litem for cats to sue their human co-habitors for infringing upon Kitty's First Amendment Right to freely express itself by spraying the house with kitty urine. Actually, Wise may be onto something here since postmodern performance art is much like unto animal fecal matter. Perhaps he can argue cases involving doggy poop as "Intellectual Property".

In sum, this book is most suitable for lining the bottom of a cage.

I want my money back! Appealing title and cover reeled me in, I admit it. Only, once I opened the book I found page after page of the author's diatribe agains Christianity. Well, I am a Christian and that faith strengthens, not weakens my resolve to treat all of God's creatures with love and understanding. Too bad the author has a chip on his shoulder and I'm very sorry to see Jane Goodall associating herself with this book, especially since she spoke at my church headquarters in Missouri a couple of years ago as we gave her an award. As for me and my cat, we'd rather cuddle up together in a big chair and read the book of Daniel. (His favorite)