Do Talking Gorillas and Signing Chimpanzees and Bonobos Have Rights - Research Paper Example

?Critical Thinking: Do talking gorillas and signing chimpanzees and Bonobos have rights and what distinguishes them from Human Rights? The growth anddevelopment of human society is indebted to verbal and non-verbal communication and different languages. Within this scenario, the high rate of intelligence helped the human beings to be the most successful and developed living things on earth. On the other side, there are other living things which are able to communicate like human beings. So, the basic rights that are assigned to human beings must be extended to the context of these animals. Thesis statement: The talking gorillas and signing chimpanzees and bonobos have rights and the fact that they are unable to represent themselves distinguishes from human rights. First of all, human beings must realize the fact that the members of ape family are able to make a number of signs to express their desires and emotions. This is similar to the words and signs used by human beings for communication purpose. Bekoff (2010), states that “Some of the reports by ape language researchers suggest that nonhuman great apes may be remarkably creative in producing new signing combinations” (p.307). The research works based upon the sign language used by apes prove that they are special among the animals because they make use of signs as the medium of communication and are able to improve the same. On the other side, the chimpanzees and bonobos are able to use some symbols for the purpose of communication. Burling (2007) states that, “Several captive chimpanzees have gestured spontaneously in iconic or indexical ways to show their human companions what they want” (p.79). The research work based on chimpanzees in captivity proves that they make use of their sign language to communicate with human beings. This is important because chimpanzees make use of their verbal or nonverbal mode of communication to interact with human beings. These animals are able to use their symbol language to plan for future events. One can easily identify that the sign language used by the chimpanzees and bonobos is not so different from non-verbal communication of human beings. The gestures made use by chimpanzees and bonobos to express their emotions and ideas prove that they are not so different from human beings. Smith (2002) opines about a bonobo (Kanzi) that “It would appear that Kanzi in some sense has the faculty of language and, as he can indulge in pretend play, he may also be endorsed with a ‘Theory of Mind’” (p.83). One can see that bonobos make use of sign language as the mode of communication and some bonobos possess comparatively high intelligence. So, these animals are with high intelligence and ability to communicate and they have the individual right to be treated like human beings. Besides, these animals make use of signs to generalize certain objects to a wider context. For instance, the word ‘dog’ is used to signify dogs, not a particular dog. From a different angle of view, this habit of generalization is similar to the children who are not aware of the importance of grammar in communication. But these animals are unable to speak because their vocal cords are not similar to that of human beings. In short, one can see that similarity in intelligence between these animals and human beings prove that these animals have certain rights. If human beings possess individual rights, the members of ape family deserve the same. The scenario of human rights is limited to the context of certain rights assigned to human beings. Within this context, the most important right is the right to live. One can see that most of the human rights activists fight to defend this right. At the same time, some members of ape family are special and these animals must have certain rights. For instance, the apes that can use signs and symbols to communicate with each other and with human beings must be considered as similar to human beings. The members of ape family must not be considered as mere animals because their intelligence level is high. This high rate of intelligence helps these animals (say, in captivity) to communicate with human beings. According to Ehrlich (2000), “Genealogically, we are more closely related to chimps and bonobos than chimps and bonobos are to gorillas” (p.69). The genealogical studies prove that chimpanzees and bonobos are related to human beings. So, the rights that are assigned to human beings can be extended to the context of apes. But human beings are ready to assign certain rights to animals which are able to do work. For instance, dogs and horses are considered as special animals among the domestic animals. On the other side, human beings are not ready to assign these rights to the other animals that are with high intelligence. One can see that the inability of gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos to speak differentiate them from gaining rights similar to human rights. But one must realize the fact that animals cannot claim their rights because they are not able to speak. So, the activists who are fighting for the rights of animals must fight against the violation of the rights of animals. From a different angle of view, the animals of higher order of intelligence cannot represent themselves. So, human beings must consider that animals play an important role in keeping ecological balance and they have certain basic rights. Turner (2006), makes clear that “If my argument depends on the fact that human beings, as mammalian creatures, are vulnerable, then a critic might complain reasonably that one cannot distinguish between animal rights and human rights” (p.37). The effort to establish special rights to the animals which use sound and sign as the medium of communication is difficult because human beings consider themselves as superior to other living things. One can see that the human interest to preserve wildlife by maintaining bio-reserves, botanical gardens, reserved forest areas, wildlife sanctuaries and national parks must be extended to the context of the apes. To be specific, the members of ape family deserve certain basic rights and this will be helpful to save these animals from extinction. According to Wise (2003), “The strength of each animal’s liberty rights claim will turn upon what mental abilities she has and how certain we are she has them” (p.37). From a different angle of view, animal rights are interconnected with mental abilities that they possess. But this measurement or evaluation of animal rights is strictly based upon the comparison between human and animal rights. So, the animals which are similar to human beings, the animals which are able to express their feelings, and animals which are able to use signs to communicate each other must be considered as special. But one need not neglect one’s duty to protect other animals. Still, one’s primary duty is to consider the members of the ape family as similar to human beings because these animals need special care and attention. So, the best possible way to save the members of the ape family is to assign certain basic rights, especially the right to live and the right against exploitation. Summing, the high rate of intelligence helped human beings to develop from primitive life to modern life. On the other side, human beings must realize that the apes like talking gorillas, signing chimpanzees and Bonobos have certain rights. The members of ape family (gorillas, chimpanzees and Bonobos), have rights because they are similar to human beings in intelligence and the usage of symbols/signs as the mode of communication. But they are not able to represent themselves because they are unable to speak. The basic difference in intelligence between human beings and apes can be termed as qualitative, not quantitative. So, the high rate of intelligence possessed by human beings must be used for protection, not destruction. References Burling, R. (2007). The Talking Ape: How Language Evolved. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Bekoff, M. (2010). Encyclopedia of animal rights and animal welfare, Volume 1. California, US: ABC-CLIO. Ehrlich, P.R. (2000). Human natures: genes, cultures, and the human prospect. Washington, DC: Island Press. Smith, N. (2002). Language, bananas and bonobos: linguistic problems, puzzles and polemics. Massachusetts, US: John Wiley & Sons. Turner, B.S. (2006). Vulnerability And Human Rights. University Park, PA: Penn State Press. Wise, S.M. (2003). Drawing the line: science and the case for animal rights. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books. Read More