1.
The Great Ape Project
In
The Great Ape Project: Equality beyond
Humanity (1993, St. Martin's Press),
Paola Cavalieri and Peter Singer present the
following Declaration on Great Apes:
We
demand the extension of the community of
equals to include all great apes: human
beings, chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans.
The community of equals is the moral
community within which we accept certain
basic moral principles or rights as governing
our relations with each other and enforceable
at law. Among these principles or rights
are the following:
1.
The Right to Life
The lives of members of the community
of equals are to be protected. Members
of the community of equals may not be
killed except in very strictly defined
circumstances, for example, self-defense.
2.
The Protection of Individual Liberty
Members of the community of equals are
not to be arbitrarily deprived of their
liberty; if they should be imprisoned
without due legal process, they have the
right to immediate release. The detention
of those who have not been convicted of
any crime, or of those who are not criminally
liable, should be allowed only where it
can be shown to be for their own good,
or necessary to protect the public from
a member of the community who would clearly
be a danger to others if at liberty. In
such cases, members of the community of
equals must have the right to appeal,
either directly or, if they lack the relevant
capacity, through an advocate, to a judicial
tribunal.
3.
The Prohibition of Torture
The deliberate infliction of severe pain
on a member of the community of equals,
either wantonly or for an alleged benefit
to others, is regarded as torture, and
is wrong.
Cavalieri
and Singer argue that the several species
of nonhuman Great Apes are, together with
humans, members of a community of equals.
The collection of 34 essays in the volume
offers empirical evidence based on naturalistic
field-based studies of the social and emotional
lives of these primates and on lab-based research
on their communicative and intellective abilities,
as well as evidence from molecular biology
on their significant genetic kinship with
humans. In effect, the editors argue that
the Great Apes are persons and, as such, are
owed the basic and legal rights accorded to
persons.
In
independent projects, Steve Wise of the Animal
Legal Defense Fund and Gary Francione of the
Rutgers University Animal Rights Law Center
offer extended legal arguments supportive
of this attempt to rupture the traditional
Western categorical line between humans and
all other animals. Wise is completing a monograph
in which he will show, based on a reading
of common law, that chimpanzees are not property
but persons under the law and, accordingly,
have legal rights and standing. In the first
of a two part series in the Rutgers Law Review
(46,2, winter 1994), Francione argues that
nonhuman animals "...will virtually always
lose any purported balancing of human and
animal interests" as long as they are
treated as property and not accorded full
legal rights.
2.
Ethics Not Just For Nonhuman Animals
As
the above item illustrates, much of the discussion
and scholarship in the animal rights movement
is devoted to the problem of the ethics of
our actions regarding other animals what
are the features of a being that give it membership
in that community to which we owe moral consideration,
and do nonhuman animals have those features?
Do nonhuman animals have rights?
However,
there are other ethical issues that are relevant.
The ethics of advocacy itself was the topic
of a recent symposium sponsored by the Hastings
Center, a think-tank for the study of bio-ethics.
What ethical constraints should govern the
ways in which we, as activists, attempt to
reach our goals? Are we subject to the same
ethical code as everyone else, one based on
certain core values, such as honesty, tolerance
of differences, and fairness. Or, should we
be more limited because we typically seek
to undermine customary and accepted practices?
Or, should we be less limited since we act
on behalf of an oppressed or traditionally
disadvantaged group? Are we entitled to some
advantage in the form of a loosening of traditional
ethical constraints a kind of ethical affirmative
action? Are we entitled to lie; to resort
to extra-legal or even violent means...?
In
regard to violence, while the opposition and
press often claim that we are terrorists,
the animal rights movement is impressively
nonviolent. There are virtually no incidents
of life lost, either human or nonhuman, through
activist campaigns. The recently passed Animal
Enterprise Protection Act (1992), which made
it a federal offense "...to cause physical
disruption to an animal [research] enterprise
resulting in economic damage exceeding $10,000,"
mandated a report to Congress on animal-rights
terrorism. Broadening "terrorism"
to include petty vandalism, the report found
313 animal-rights related incidents (160 of
which were petty vandalism) from 1977 to June
1993. None of these 313 incidents involved
significant injury to either human or nonhuman
animals.
On
the other side, violence against nonhuman
animals in research labs is customary and
accepted practice. Further, there are numerous
incidents in which activists in both the environmental
and animal rights movement have been killed
or seriously injured in the past decade. Just
this past year a hunt saboteur was killed
in the UK.
Arguably,
laboratory animal research scientists are
advocates also. They belong to professional
associations that typically, as does the American
Psychological Association, advocate a strong
pro-animal research position. They help form
and run advocacy groups that develop clearly
propagandist materials for example, ads
that exaggerate the benefits of animal research.
As
individuals and organizations, they often
act in ways that are of ethically questionable.
At a recent animal-rights organized press
conference during World Laboratory Animal
Liberation Week, the target research institution,
Hershey Medical Center, sent their own public
relations person to hand out leaflets. The
material denied that animals involved in the
research die a direct lie. Ronald Wood,
a psychologist at New York University conducting
addiction research on primates, has had his
work suspended pending allegations of animal
abuse for example, depriving monkeys of
water for 21 hours a day.
Seymour
Levine, a psychologist whose unusually highly
invasive research we described in an earlier
newsletter
(Winter 1993), is the object of a sexual
harassment suit by a former research assistant.
In
a recent study on student views of their professors'
actions (Ethics and Behavior,
3, 2, 149-162, 1993), the investigators found
that 62.1% of undergraduate students sampled
rated the common practice of "requiring
students to use electric shock on rats"
as unethical in many or all circumstances.
A
Proposal
While
animal rights activists have an excellent
record in regard to violence, we have our
share of turf battles, arguments over acceptable
practices and resulting rancor. One way to
deal with these tensions is to develop a code
of ethics for activists, analogous to that
found in many professional and trade associations.
In endorsing the code, organizations agree
to follow certain procedures in both filing
and responding to complaints of unethical
conduct, including entering mediation and/or
conflict resolution. PSYeta feels that the
Summit for Animals is an ideal vehicle for
developing and administering this code.
To
this end, we first need an open discussion
of the ethics of advocacy. As an example of
the kinds of issues and concepts that such
a discussion should address, consider two
recent controversies, both involving
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
Some activists believe that a recent set of
anti-fur ads published by PETA are sexist
and, therefore, detrimental to another social
justice movement, feminism. A second controversy
involves PETA's protest of the snare trapping
of feral pigs in Hawaii by the Nature Conservancy.
In both examples, two progressive movements
are in conflict. However, arguably, in the
first example, the conflict is not inherent
for surely PETA could develop effective ads
that are not sexist. In the second example,
the conflict is inherent: PETA and the Nature
Conservancy have different positions regarding
the relative value of individual animals and
the integrity of ecosystems. An ethic of advocacy
should distinguish between actions involving
conflicts between groups that are at direct
loggerheads and those that are only obliquely
at odds. Arguably, there should be more ethical
constraint on a practice that offends another
social agenda unnecessarily than one that
does so because of an inherent difference.
This suggests that PETA is more justified
ethically in its actions regarding the Nature
Conservancy than in those offensive to the
feminist movement. (For a fuller discussion
of these issues, please request "Notes
toward an Ethics of Advocacy," a paper
by K. Shapiro presented at the Hastings Center
symposium).
3.
Current and Prospective PSYeta Publications
Society and Animals. The second issue
of Volume 2 is now available and contains
studies of attitudes toward animal research
in 15 different nations, the relation between
support for animal rights and other social
issues, a comparison of animal rights activist
and researcher/technician views of laboratory
animal care, a psychological profile of animal
rights activists; commentaries on conflicting
views of animal rights proponents and their
opposition, animal deities in religion; and
a review essay on two recent books on zoos.
Humane Innovations and Alternatives (HIA).
Available in September, Volume 8 will contain
over 40 articles on topics including environmental
enrichment for captive marmosets, an alternative
to in vivo studies of birth defects #173;
using fruit fly embryos, a nonanimal model
for veterinary surgical training, boredom
in captive animals, species-specific housing
needs for mice, personality sketches of cows,
providing housing for bats, humane innovations
for fish, a model hospice shelter for cats,
a model pig sanctuary, a comparison of successful
and unsuccessful companion animal adoptions.
Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science
(JAAWS) will replace HIA in 1995. Jointly
produced with the American Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, JAAWS will
publish articles and reports providing information
on methods of experimentation, husbandry and
care that demonstrably enhance the welfare
and decrease the reliance on animals in a
variety of settings.
A
Rodent for your Thoughts: Animal Models of
Human Psychology is a book-length critique
of laboratory-based animal research, available
January 1995.
4.
Support PSYeta
Membership.
Please pay your 1994 dues now. The code on
your envelope's mailing label is a reminder
of when you last paid dues. (Eg. "03/15/93
25.00" means you paid dues in March 1993
and, therefore, we would appreciate payment
of 1994 dues at this time).
Bequests.
Persons wishing to become benefactors of PSYeta
should consult an attorney or incorporate
the following provisions carefully into their
wills. "I bequeath to Psychologists for
the Ethical Treatment of Animals, P.O. Box
1297, Washington Grove, MD 20880, the sum
of ___________" to be applicable to the
general purposes of the organization. (Or
if so desired, you may designate a specific
purpose for the money). |
