On the one hand, my knee-jerk reaction to the article was, "Oh no, now they are a giving apes 'rights'! What's next, banning pets?" On the other hand, having read "Next of Kin" it seems me that since apes are so much more intelligent than other animals, perhaps we can (and should) deal with them on a different level than other animals.

That still doesn't mean that apes are our "equals" though. No one has ever observed apes making fire, for instance, or bows and arrows. Even the most primitive African Bushmen are more advanced than chimpanzees. Given that their intellectual capacity is still more limited than ours, we still can't fully apply the Golden Rule (treat others the way you would want to be treated) to apes, nor do I think we even need to, since an apes' wants are going to be at least slightly different from a persons.

The Golden Rule poses, for me at least, the biggest problem with the animal rights movement. The Rule only works when it is reciprocated. For instance, we break it when we penalize law-breakers, but since lawbreakers break the Golden Rule themselves, they forfeit the full protection of the Rule. In the same vein, you can't fully apply the Golden Rule to animals, because you can only expect limited reciprocity at best (like from a pet), and animals' wants are not the same as human wants.

"Next of Kin" is a wonderful book (I work with Washoe and her family, well Washoe passed in Oct, but she is still a very big part of my life).

About the Golden Rule, it is not all about reciprocation. It addresses how you should treat individuals. For us as humans, we do expect some reciprocation, we would consider it rude to not. It would be nice if every human lived by this rule, but we know that doesn't happen, but it doesn't stop me from trying to live by it. This is a human made rule, and to put that on animals is wrong. But that does not put them outside of the rule. We can still treat them as we would want to be treated. I don't think this is a problem at all with animal rights, for people who speak up for animals don't expect anything back from them. Just knowing that they are in a better place for our actions is enough. It is not about reciprocating, it is about helping.

georgiedog:

I don't think this is a problem at all with animal rights, for people who speak up for animals don't expect anything back from them.

So what do you think of Leona Helmsley leaving $12 million to her dog? Technically, she has the right to do that, but going back to the Golden Rule, would a dog really be happier with $12 million worth of dog stuff than a typical middle-class pet? A human would, but humans needs and wants are more complex. Furthermore, why didn't Mrs. Helmsley care that much for her country, and pay her taxes like a good citizen?

Now don't get me wrong, I like animals, and stuff like cock-fights and dog fights offends my moral sense. Plus its a fact that those who abuse animals often abuse people, too.

I resent the implications made by animal rights activists, though, that anyone who eats meat is at best "unenlightened", and that extending love to animals is the next step of moral evolution, (like the civil rights movement). I know plenty of meat-eaters who are otherwise decent, kind, caring individuals who are even nice to their pets. Also, it is possible to love animals more than humans. For instance, while it is a myth that Hitler was a vegan, Karl Koch, a concentration camp commandante, was a known animal lover (see "The Most Evil Men and Women in History). Then you have your anti-social, "crazy cat people" and so forth.

Speaking of loving animals more than humans, despite Fout's assertions to the contrary, I believe that those who are against animal testing of any kind are indeed demeaning the suffering of human beings (even if they don't mean to). A person cured of cancer, for example, could go on living to benefit the world in countless ways. What equivelant contributions to the world could a lab rat make? Is it really worth sacrificing the human to save the rat? If a person had a baby and a rat suspended over a cliff, and said they would only drop one, and spare the one you named (and you better think fast or they'll decide for you), which would you save? Let's crank it up a notch and say the baby's your own (or the offspring of a dear relative or dear friend). Would you sacrifice the baby for the rat? Could you look a terminally ill person (or their loved ones) in the eye and say with conviction, "I'm truly sorry, but I would rather see the lab rats live than you (or your loved one)"?

First what Leona Helmsley did was alittle wacky. I Understand wanting to make sure your dog is taken care, but leaving your dog that much money is a bit much.

As for vegetarianism, I think you are reacting to extreme animal rights people like PETA. PETA is a bit much, while PETA does some good things, they tend to give animal rights a bad name. I am not a vegetarian, however, I try to eat ethically. I want the animal I eat to have a good life and one bad day. I want them to have the life a chicken or cow should have, being able to be chicken or a cow. It is hard to eat ethically, and I fail sometimes because often I can't afford to. But I am moving in that direction and doing what I can.

About animal testing, you ask good questions that are common concerns. They used to be my concerns. Of course I would pick my family over a lab rat, but then I met Washoe and her family. They are my friends and everyone of them was intended for biomedical. I could not imagine these guys, my friends, suffering like that. It was an unimaginable thought. That is when it hit me, what we are doing is wrong. We are sacrificing other lives. We are killing other species (sometimes endangered species) to perpetuate a overpopulated and destructive species. The bottom line for me is that the way we justify biomed is by putting ourselves above other species, and I just don't see it that way. Every life has a right to live a life free of cruelty. No, I do not want to die, I would like to avoid it, but I don't think it is fair that others are suffering so I can live. My point of view is very different from most. I don't believe in the hierarchy of life with human at the top, I believe in a horizontal plane where we all have our spot, none better then the other, just different.

A person cured from cancer could also go one to harm the world in a number of ways. A lab rat may not make a huge contribution to the world as a whole (at least not from the human perspective), but they will live to do alot less damage to the world than most humans. Yes i would choose the baby over the rat when held over a cliff, but I would also choose my baby over someone elses baby when held over a cliff.

It is all in the way you see the world and how you order the world. Is it a verticle or horizontal line?

You sound pretty moderate, and I agree with most of what you say, but the impression I get is that extremist groups like PETA essentially control the agenda nowadays. What we need are moderate groups that have the guts to distance themselves from the extremists and draw clear lines as to what is acceptable for the agenda and what is not (come to think of it, that ought to happen with a lot of ideologies).

Regarding biomedical research, I stated before that I think chimps ought to be dealt with on a more higher level than other animals, I honestly don't feel comfortable about experimenting on creature with the intellect of a young child myself. But I don't feel the same way about mice, rats, and the like. Because of their smaller intellectual capacity, they have much simpler wants and needs. As long labs keep them as comfortable as possible, I don't think that what they have to go through would them as miserable as it would us.

You sound pretty moderate, which is good. About the only area we seem to disagree is biomedical research on animals.

I stated before that I think chimps could and should be dealt with on a higher level than most other animals. I don't feel comfortable with the idea of experimenting on creatures with the intelligence of a human child. I don't feel the same way about rats, mice, and the like, though. Because their intellects are so much smaller, they have much simpler needs and wants. The way I see it, as long labs keep them as comfortable as possible, then whatever suffering they go through will be less serious for them than it would be for us.