Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts

Argentine Court Rules Orangutan Is a "Non-Human Person" 187

Posted by samzenpus from the I-wanna-be-like-you-hoo-hoo dept.
First time accepted submitter Andrio writes In an unprecedented decision, an Argentine court has ruled that the Sumatran orangutan 'Sandra', who has spent 20 years at the zoo in Argentina's capital Buenos Aires, should be recognized as a person with a right to freedom. The ruling, signed by the judges unanimously, would see Sandra freed from captivity and transferred to a nature sanctuary in Brazil after a court recognized the primate as a "non-human person" which has some basic human rights. The Buenos Aires zoo has 10 working days to seek an appeal." A similar case involving chimpanzees failed to provide "non-human person" status here in the U.S. earlier this month.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Argentine Court Rules Orangutan Is a "Non-Human Person" More

Argentine Court Rules Orangutan Is a "Non-Human Person"

Comments Filter:
  • It's official:

    Monkeys now have more rights than 21st century American citizens.

    • Re:Monkey Business (Score:5, Funny)

      by digsbo ( 1292334 ) on Monday December 22, 2014 @02:09PM (#48653903)
      Sure they do. We live under an oligarchy, while they live under a (wait for it) .... BANANA REPUBLIC.

    • Re:Monkey Business (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jedidiah ( 1196 ) on Monday December 22, 2014 @02:13PM (#48653931) Homepage

      This leads to an obvious followup question...

      If this ape is a person then who is responsible for his care and feeding? Normally, an adult person is responsible for their own care and feeding including any required payment.

      Will he be on the dole? Will he manage his own money? Will he do his own grocery shopping and cooking? Will he have a lease? Does he know he's supposed to use the toilet? Can he use the toilet? Can he manage putting on his own diapers if not?

      Is this ape going to get a job? Or will it still remain effectively a sub-human in a different type of cage?

      It looks like not much really changed here...

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Jeremi ( 14640 )

        Is this ape going to get a job? Or will it still remain effectively a sub-human in a different type of cage?

        It looks like not much really changed here...

        It looks like what will change is that the orangutan will live in a wildlife sanctuary rather than in a zoo.

        Whether that is significant or not depends on the difference in quality-of-life (for an orangutan) between living in a cage (or small zoo enclosure) vs living in a larger outdoor environment. I'd imagine that the orangutan's quality of life will improve significantly, but that's only a layman's guess since I don't claim any expertise on orangutans. I suppose the test would be to give the orangutan t

        • Nobody will feed it anymore, and it will face predation.

        • Re:Monkey Business (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Monday December 22, 2014 @03:48PM (#48654927)

          But the orangutan does not get to choose. There is no freedom involved here, just the decision about which group of humans gets to dicate its life.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Calydor ( 739835 )

            So like any election in the history of ever?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dryeo ( 100693 )

            We're talking about Orangutans, perhaps the best escape artists ever and when someone keeps escaping from a cage there's a very good chance they don't want to be there. Google "orangutan escape" for many stories.
            One I liked was from a zoo keeper about different Great Apes handed a screw driver. The chimp would take it and do everything but use it as a screwdriver. The Gorilla would back away from the threat, then try to eat it. The Orangutan would nonchalantly hide the screw driver and then later at night,

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by mark-t ( 151149 )
              I don't dispute that they don't want to be there, but it may be far less of a hatred of being in a cage, per se, and much more a matter of simple boredom.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by dryeo ( 100693 )

                Boredom can be torture, especially for a creature that is used or has it in its genes to roam a large territory.

      • >"Will he be on the dole? Will he manage his own money? Will he do his own grocery shopping and cooking? Will he have a lease? >Does he know he's supposed to use the toilet? Can he use the toilet? Can he manage putting on his own diapers if not?"

        If they can find a way to legally tax him, then the answer is "yes" to all of the above.

        The logistics will be worked out later.

      • So someone without money, shopping, hygiene and a job is not a person. Wow, it doesn't take much to see that you are a hard-on capitalist.
        Apes were doing their care and feeding just fine before humans came along. Why should they have to fit into our society if we didn't make an effort to preserve theirs?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by itzly ( 3699663 )
          Flesh eating bacteria were also doing fine before humans came along, so next time one starts eating on your leg, we'll just respect it as a person, and leave it there.
          • If this orangutan was considered dangerous to people while it lives in a wildlife sanctuary, your ridiculous straw-man argument might have some merit.
      • not only that but just today I read about a woman who was charged with homicide because of the actions of her daughter. If this thing kills a person, who is responsible???

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by x0ra ( 1249540 )
          Responsibility and justice are just human concepts. There is nothing inherently just (or unjust) in them.

      • Re:Monkey Business (Score:5, Funny)

        by Culture20 ( 968837 ) on Monday December 22, 2014 @03:30PM (#48654655)

        If this ape is a person then who is responsible for his care and feeding? Normally, an adult person is responsible for their own care and feeding including any required payment.

        Will he be on the dole?

        Dole, Chiquita. Any brand would work really.

      • He's not free. It's ridiculous. He's being moved from one prison to a different prison. Ok, it's a slightly nicer prison that he's going to but it's not at all the same as freedom in any sense.

      • By those standards, you'd be hard-pressed to find human people.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by x0ra ( 1249540 )
        How about "nobody" ? Why do you need to be so narrowly minded to assume than living being need to be cared about, either by the Government, their employer, or the zoo manager ?

      • I would assume that if this ruling stands, the law would treat an ape the same way it treats human children, or adults that are considered incompetent. This means that someone else makes the decision for them, but the law still protects their fundamental rights (such as e.g. a right to life), and, at least in theory, the decisions must be in their best interest, which can be legally enforced in some circumstances. It's still way better than being treated as property.

      • The real question is if any police officer will arrest the chimp for breaking laws. If orangutangs are people, then they need to play by the same rules as us.

    • They'll be driving cars next!

  • Argentina has truly earned the title (Score:3)

    by digsbo ( 1292334 ) on Monday December 22, 2014 @02:10PM (#48653909)
    Argentina has truly earned the title "Banana Republic".
  • Time for another scopes monkey trial!

    • Time for another scopes monkey trial!

      Oh, I don't think that's a good idea. Do you have any idea how hard it is to even *get* monkeys to use mouthwash?

  • *Scratch*
    *Flingpoo*

    Anyone got a banana?

    Of course, this is how it starts.

    Next thing we know: Planet of the Apes! [wikipedia.org]

  • is not whether or not animals are persons, but whether or not we can give ourselves every rights to subdue, restrain, decide of the life or death, and/or mutilation (commonly known as "fixing") of other living being. If you see this on a consent point of view, there is no way an animal can give consent in human terms. In most case, even if the animal gave consent it might not be relevant, as the animal is in direct dependence on humans for his bare survival, as it has been "trained" (and to some extend dumb

    • Re:The real problem... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) on Monday December 22, 2014 @02:44PM (#48654163)

      is not whether or not animals are persons, but whether or not we can give ourselves every rights to subdue, restrain, decide of the life or death, and/or mutilation (commonly known as "fixing") of other living being.

      Of course we can!

      Possibility the First: God exists, and gave Man dominion over the Earth and everything in it. Check, we can do what we like.

      Possibility the Second: God doesn't exist, we're just another animal. Therefore we can do what we like to the lesser animals, because, after all, we're just another Top-of-the-Food-Chain predator, eh?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by x0ra ( 1249540 )
        Then we should be able to do the same to others humans, as humans predators would be at the top of the food chain of other weaker humans... Oh, wait... isn't that what Governments are doing ? Imposing their will on us, without complete acceptance of EACH AND EVERY one of us ?

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by spyfrog ( 552673 )

          No, the reason you can't do this to other humans is because that would work extremely bad in a civilization. You simply have to have some rules - like not murdering each other, not selling each other as slaves etc. Or the society would break down.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by x0ra ( 1249540 )
            I think the human history would prove you wrong. You are reasoning with current-era morality standard, just the same way gun control freaks are calling wolf by stating that street would be a blood-bath if CCW was to be widespread, or anti-marijuana freaks keep stating that legalizing the stuff would create millions of non-productive druggies overnight. Societies have been running for centuries with widespread use of slavery, and to some extend, without the rule-of-law we know nowadays. The greatest structur

          • There have been plenty of societies that functioned for quite a long time where selling people as slaves was perfectly acceptable. (Step 1 tends to be "Regard Person-or-Group-to-be-sold as less human than you are.")

          • I actually don't give much of a crap about kicking monkeys and other animals around - it doesn't happen that often. At least not compared with the number of animals tortured, driven to extinction, and dying due to environmental degradation. There'd be a lot more monkeys left if animal rights guys would stop focusing their efforts on these stupid issues and start suing people who cut down too many trees or burn too much carbon. Just sayin'.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by x0ra ( 1249540 )
              If cutting too many tree means a higher standard of life for me and my related kin, then I don't have a problem, even if doing so means killing i species. OOTH, I don't see the point of keeping animals in zoo, or as pet. The only reason I see for pet is to alleviate loneliness, which is a symptoms of a weak mind. The only reason I see for zoo is that you get an instant gratification (seeing animals), which would otherwise be much more difficult in nature, in terms of general resource people would be willing

      • False dichotomy. You're assuming the only source of morality is a possible God, and that in the absence of said God anything goes. There are plenty of possible ways of grounding morality in something other than the edicts of a God, and those may all have different things to say about how humans ought to treat other animals. (There are also many possible conceptions of God and claims as to what he may or may not have said and what any such things may mean, so in either case it's not open-and-shut like you sa

  • That seems strange (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nedlohs ( 1335013 ) on Monday December 22, 2014 @02:20PM (#48653995)

    Deporting her to a country she has never been in seems a strange thing to do. Don't people complain when you do that to human people - deporting people who have only ever lived in whatever country their parent illegally migrated to. Heck it's not even the "native" country of the species in question...

    So surely just set her free into the streets of whatever city the zoo is in.

    • Maybe the resolution its for "take care of" this non-human person more than "get its own decisions"

    • Re:That seems strange (Score:5, Insightful)

      by swb ( 14022 ) on Monday December 22, 2014 @02:54PM (#48654267)

      I think there's probably a reasonable argument to be made that a move to a foreign location, even one nominally more "native" than a zoo, is a definite hardship on an animal who has become habituated to a specific environment.

      Now, if the "zoo" in question is a 10x10 concrete room with bars, then maybe the quality of life in a larger and more natural (in the sense of less confinement and concrete) environment is worth a temporary disruption.

      But what about zoos that give primates large, outdoor spaces with natural accommodations like ponds, trees, shelter and primate experts who ensure their physical health and mental stimulation? A "natural" environment may be at best an equal trade and in some instances worse if it comes with a change in the fellow-species population (change in social status, loss of familiar animals or mates, etc).

      I'm not always sure that "natural" spaces really are as natural as their made out to be unless it means putting the animal back in its native environment -- sure, their animals but they can become as habituated to a captive lifestyle as any animal. My dog may love to run free outside, but he seems pretty well adapted to sleeping on the couch and probably wouldn't like being made to live outdoors 24x7 after living his life indoors.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) *

        There is a long history of returning zoo animals to the wild. They are not simply dumped in a habitat, they are released and monitored, given assistance and helped to adapt. Eventually they become independent.

        While a zoo may seem like a comfy environment some animals just don't do well in captivity. It puts psychological stress on them and causes all sorts of issues. Pandas won't mate or carry their children to term, whales become violent... Release is the best of a bad set of options, but it is possible to

  • An interesting point is (Score:4, Interesting)

    by azav ( 469988 ) on Monday December 22, 2014 @02:28PM (#48654059) Homepage Journal

    That an orangutan will not try to eat you. Chimps can and will.

    If these creatures get legal self identity, then are they also legally required to obey our laws?

    • If these creatures get legal self identity, then are they also legally required to obey our laws?

      I thought about it as well, but now I think there might be precedent for a kind of a special status there. Think about those uncontacted Amazonian tribes - they're definitely considered human, and if you were to kill one of them you'd be charged with murder, but I'm pretty sure that those tribes don't know or care about e.g. Brazilian laws, and they are not actually enforced against them. I do wonder how they word that in law, though.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) *

      There are human beings with severe learning difficulties who have a similar legal status. They have basic rights but can't, for example, enter contracts or be held accountable for certain illegal actions that they cannot comprehend. Others make important decisions for them because they are incapable of doing so.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Smauler ( 915644 )

      That an orangutan will not try to eat you. Chimps can and will.

      An orangutan may try and rape you, though.

  • Just wait until Quantum Physics turns you into a monkey.
    The odds are incredibly small, but the rest of eternity is a long time.

  • Will the orangutan be an Argentine citizen?

  • In the US they picked the wrong chimp (Score:5, Interesting)

    by VernonNemitz ( 581327 ) on Monday December 22, 2014 @02:40PM (#48654135) Journal
    Look up "Washoe [wikipedia.org]". Being able to communicate, even if only by sign language, is important. The average chimp doesn't communicate much better than other ordinary animals, like dogs. And humans can fail to be communicative, look up "feral child [wikipedia.org]". The point here is that humans are naturally prejudiced in favor of themselves, thinking that characteristics associated with personhood (like communicative-ness) are automatically/naturally associated with biological growth. But the fact is (at least here on Earth), communicative-ness at the person-class level is a result of Nurture, not Nature. As a result, if certain other organisms also receive appropriate Nurture (like Washoe did), then those organisms are as likely as a human to qualify for personhood. So now look up Koko the Gorilla [koko.org] and Chantek the Orangutan [wikipedia.org]. Equally logically, any organisms that don't receive appropriate Nurture, including humans, are going to qualify more as ordinary animals than as persons. (The default Natural condition, per biological development only, for a human is to be just a clever animal.)

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by pubwvj ( 1045960 )

      "The average chimp doesn't communicate much better than other ordinary animals, like dogs"

      While a lot of research was done with chips and apes on communication what is not widely known by your average Joe is that many other species also communicate quite well too. We have a large multi-generational pack of livestock working dogs on our farm. They have their own language, they use some English words, since we speak English, and they use quite a few sign language words with us as well. We understand some of t

  • Wondering; what are these "basic human rights" that actual human babies are denied at the rate of 50 million a year?

    Take for example the right to freedom. Nobody has to take care of the orangutan for it to exercise this right. But for a baby to exercise its right to freedom, it has to be nurtured for around 18 years or so, and that's much too inconvenient. It takes work and selfless sacrifice, both of which suck. (Speaking as a parent of one, and another on the way)

    So how exactly does this make us more

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Because when a fetus is in a women's body it is part of her body. And she can do what she wants to her body. End of story.

      These are two completely different subjects and you're really reaching here to tie this into abortion law.

      • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

        by PseudoCoder ( 1642383 )

        Law? How shortsighted! No; it's about what we value, and how we make choices about life and death, and what makes us human.

        That woman opened up her body to her mate and that little person ended up there through no fault of its own. Mommy and daddy decided to ignore basic human physiology and now it is, in fact, the end of the story for that kid that ends up like it went through a blender. Your hand is a part of your body; ever tried to put your hand in a blender?

        • Law? How shortsighted! No; it's about what we value, and how we make choices about life and death, and what makes us human.

          That woman opened up her body to her mate and that little person ended up there through no fault of its own. Mommy and daddy decided to ignore basic human physiology and now it is, in fact, the end of the story for that kid that ends up like it went through a blender. Your hand is a part of your body; ever tried to put your hand in a blender?

          That's the way you see it and you're trying to present it as fact. It's not. It's interpretation.

          Don't believe me? Have your appendix burst. Suddenly you'll see a very real circumstance where removal of a body part is trivial and not a matter for ethical consideration.

          You've decided that "personhood" begins at conception. Well, other people don't see a single fertilized cell as a human being. This isn't a topic that can be defined in rigid blacks & whites. At the single-cell stage, what you'v

    • Nobody has to take care of the orangutan for it to exercise this right. But for a baby to exercise its right to freedom, it has to be nurtured for around 18 years or so, and that's much too inconvenient.

      Assuming that you're referring to actual babies that have been born, then they still have human rights that their parents or legal guardians can't deny them. For example, you can't lock up your kid in a cage, even though other more reasonable limits on the freedom of movement are allowed. Generally speaking, it's okay so long as it's in their interest. Similarly, in this story, they're not letting the orangutan go where it wants, but admitting that the current arrangement is definitely not in its interest.

      • Assuming that you're referring to actual babies that have been born...

        It seems you too are missing the point, just like the aptly named Anonymous Coward above. Why was this actual baby born, or why should it not be? The criteria used to answer this question is at the heart of the matter, and you're standing on legal definitions.

        "Congratulations, new human! We've decided not to run you through the blender! Since you've made it this far, here are your inalienable rights!"

        • You yourself talked about "until they reach 18 years of age"; abortion is clearly but one aspect of this, and arguably not the biggest one by far (there are far more children who are born, but have their rights limited until they are of age, than aborted fetuses).

          I didn't want to touch on abortion for the simple reason that it's vastly more complicated - there's the issue of when you start considering a fetus a person (it is obvious to any rational person that a fertilized egg or an embryo is not a person i

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      It's seems perfectly plausible to me that an adult great ape might be a "person" but a blastula with a couple of dozen cells is not, nor a one ounce fetus at the end of the first trimester. The baby's brain at birth will weigh more than a dozen times that at birth.

    • If you're going to use the compassion angle, a 20 year old orangutan most likely has self awareness and memories. Can the same be said about what you're referencing?

  • The ape is a "Non human person" (Score:3)

    by jd2112 ( 1535857 ) on Monday December 22, 2014 @03:20PM (#48654531)
    So it's a corporation?

  • So this court in Argentina declared:
    1) This orangutan is a person
    2) Decreed that she be banished from civilization immediately. I.E. "Freed"

    Didn't anyone ASK this supposed person what they wanted?

  • I would suspect that the ruling was in spanish and did not use the English word person. Perhaps it was persona? These ruling are somewhat about what words mean. Or what they meant to lawmakers when they wrote laws using those words. Argentine law is based on Spanish legal tradition and things like the Napoleonic code. (as opposed to English common law in the USA)

Slashdot Top Deals

Riches: A gift from Heaven signifying, "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased." -- John D. Rockefeller, (slander by Ambrose Bierce)

Close