Scientists have been amassing evidence about the spectrum of animal sentience. Their findings support Darwin’s theory of evolutionary continuity, that differences between species were differences in degree, not in kind.
SARAH KASBEER: ‘If Happy the elephant were allowed to live a natural life in the wild, she would likely spend her days roaming miles of tropical forest and plucking fruit and leaves from trees with the finger-like tip of her trunk… But Happy does not do any of this. She currently lives alone at the Bronx Zoo. And recently, she has become the subject of an unusual custody battle that could result in her release.
In 2018, an advocacy group called the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) filed a writ of habeas corpus (Latin for “produce the body”) on Happy’s behalf, and, for the first time, a court heard the case for an elephant’s legal personhood and subsequent right to bodily liberty. Previous habeas petitions by the NhRP, designed to challenge the captivity of chimps, have been unsuccessful. But the arguments have succeeded in furthering the debate around whether animals—especially those proven to have high levels of cognition—should qualify as more than just “things” under the law…
In the last quarter of the twentieth century, scientists began amassing evidence about the spectrum of animal sentience. Their findings supported Darwin’s theory of evolutionary continuity, that differences between species were differences in degree—not in kind. In 2005, researchers studying the evolution of cognition gave the elephants at the Bronx Zoo the mark test for mirror self-recognition (MSR), a behavioral indicator of self-awareness…
Because Happy passed the litmus test for MSR, her species was added to a growing list of animals capable of demonstrating self-awareness. In front of the mirror, self-aware species act a lot like humans… The implications of self-awareness, however, could extend beyond visible, physical aspects to include an ability to reflect on private thoughts and autobiographical experiences. If Happy is lonely, she may have the ability to dwell on it…
Over the last two hundred years in the United States, the definition of legal personhood has expanded to include slaves, indigenous people, women, and children. Could certain animals be next? Although the NhRP is only asking the court to recognize one right for Happy—bodily liberty—neither full nor partial rights for a nonhuman would be entirely unprecedented. In 2017, courts in two U.S. states began considering the well-being of cats, dogs, and other animals in divorce proceedings, blurring the lines between person and property…
The same year, New Zealand granted the Whanganui River full legal personhood, including all of the “rights, duties, and liabilities of a legal person.” Two legal human guardians were appointed to advocate on its behalf. And in 2015, a court in Argentina declared a zoo orangutan named Sandra “una persona no humana” and ordered her released into the custody of a sanctuary…
There will always be resistance to recognizing the need to rethink our relationship to the world around us—to admit we got it wrong before we got it right. Personhood as a legal concept may not be appropriate for all beings. But to deny it to one simply because we do not wish to grant it to all is illogical.
We are already engaging in an extreme form of speciesism by placing our own need to dominate the planet’s resources above of the rights of other species to exist. The least we could do is use our ability to navigate complex ethical dilemmas — our so-called human exceptionalism — to address injustice by whatever means possible. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, only the best option in a given situation. For Happy, it’s an elephant-shaped container for civil rights’. SOURCE…
RELATED VIDEO: