Interesting article and topic indeed.
Reports show that you can interact with a dwarf chimpanzee much like with a 2,5 year old child. Of course, they can't talk, their throat and mouth won't allow that. But they can learn and understand lexigrams, which each covers a few words. They also express themselves with the lexigrams in ways that wasn't taught to them. In short they have much more capability of language use, notice both natural and with instruction (as humans), than has been thought.
One thing surprised the researchers. The chimpanzee that was taught lexigrams actually started to understand speech as well (this is not responding to commands), this was not intended, but apparently the chimp learn to understand a language in many ways similar to a human (as we don't learn only through instruction either). The chimp in question now can understand simple English speech (like a basic storyline), and recognizes about 3000 spoken words.
But the question is, are they persons? This usually kicks of all kind of ways to compare animals to humans (who also is an animal, of course). DNA percentages, capability of feelings, cognitive abilities, social interaction etc... If they can be said to be persons, should they have rights? Should we treat them better? And the only way to solve this seems to be the search for a waterproof reason, or a couple of them. This is a old question indeed and open up to the general question of how we treat animals of all kind.
But most people don't need any
reasons of that kind to act decent in everyday life among humans , or even to his pet. (a few maybe could have use for it
) We usually don't ask for these kind of reasons in legal court either. So, I don't ask myself, is this a person? Does this man in front of me really fit the definition of a person? I wonder if his DNA is up to it? Can he reason in a good way? Would he be able to develop or engage in science and philosophy? What if I'm evolutionary superior to him? (This is a question which really is questionable from a biological point of view, as modern biology have tried to rid itself from the 1800-centuray image of human as the crown of evolutionary tree). The point is that the whole question always slips down the slippery slope of reasons, and in the meantime the industrial treatment of animals continue every day, or as the case with some species, they risk to go extinct in the near future. The ethics is usually the reason why the person question is raised, unless you find wordplay and definitions the most interesting thing to entertain yourself with.
I recently read John Michael Coetzee and his short piece
The Lives of Animals and it really captured the above situation. It's about a female novel writer who delivers a lecture about animal rights and vegetarianism at the philosophy department at university, and then goes to have a post lecture dinner... (Nice setting, as you can guess
) It really is worth reading if you are interested in finding something which opens up a new way to look at the questions at hand. But don't expect to find a list of argued reasons in favor for this or that, although many classical reasons are displayed. More like, expect to find yourself in a real ethical dilemma, and then try to acknowledge what this really means to you.
cheers Porphy