Mariah Slagle

Environmental Philosophy 2300

The Rights of Apes

There is no way to deny that members of the Hominid Family are a highly intelligent,

emotional, and unique group that have prominent personalities. While many people feel quite

separate from these apes, humans are a species under the family Hominidae and less separates

these species biologically than people may believe. However, one of the only differences that is

truly significant is how the different Hominid species are seen in the eyes of the law. Legally,

Humans are seen as legal persons which allows us certain self-governing rights such as Habeas

Corpus rights. The law of Habeas Corpus protects legal persons when they have been unjustly

imprisoned and allows them to call a legal trial to force imprisoners to give reason as to why the

person should be imprisoned for any longer. In the United States, apes are seen as legal things or

legal property, and have no Habeas Corpus rights to protect them from unjust imprisonment.

Two Chimpanzees named Hercules and Leo are being held in captivity for scientific research and

an advocacy group called the Nonhuman rights campaign has filed and appealed Habeas Corpus

lawsuits in an attempt to free these apes. Apes are unlike other creatures in captivity and have

needs ranging from humidity, to mental health and social grouping needs. If these needs are not

met the animals can suffer behavioral issues akin to mental health disorders seen in humans.

Apes like Hercules and Leo deserve better than the life we have given them; While the first step

for Apes may be removing them from scientific research and raising the requirements of legally

dictated care, these animals are unfit for most forms of captivity.
 Why does the argument for Habeas Corpus rights begin with Chimpanzees specifically?

The answer may be because of how incredibly similar their species is to our own. The argument

that many use against this fact stems from a fear that humans imaginative abilities cause people

to see animals in an anthropocentric manner. However, without the use of much imagination,

when we observe the interactions of animals like chimpanzees is almost too easy to piece

together their different ways of interpersonal communication. Unjustified linguistic barriers

fragment the unity with which nature presents us Apes and humans did not have enough time to

independently evolve strikingly similar behavior Our terminology should honor the obvious

evolutionary connections. (De Waal pg.26) The ways in which we justify denying Ape

intelligence is gratuitous. We can easily interpret purpose in their actions and describe their body

language as they often use cues that we can recognize. While they are not capable of speech, the

complex social structure of Chimpanzees could not exist without communication.

Chimpanzees in particular are highly social animals and their mental health depends on

having a social group. Chimpanzees like Hercules and Leo would live in large groups over their

own territory with a complex hierarchy structure and near constant social interaction. In captivity

Chimpanzees often live in smaller groups and Leo and Hercules are confined with only each

other for company. Apes specifically have very explicit needs because of their intelligence and

curiosity, when not properly stimulated apes often succumb to behavioral issues that can have

lingering negative effects throughout their lifespan. In an interview published by Scientific

American, psychiatrist Martin Brne shares that Chimpanzees that have been used in research

are more likely to display behavioral issues in their lives. These behavioral issues can range from

PTSD like symptoms, to indicators of what seems like anxiety disorders or depression seen in

humans. (Servick) While there are currently no scientifically accepted mental illness in Apes,
these behavioral issues negatively affect the individuals quality of life and prevent them from

living in healthy ways.

While the current lawsuit filed is fighting for the Habeas Corpus rights for Chimpanzee,

it is very easy to reason that if the lawsuit is successful, that in the future we may see similar

rights granted to other species. It is very likely that Hominids would be the first group to be

granted these rights, but would we permanently stop there? Would we also include other close

groups like monkeys? Where would the extension be cut off? In the past only white men were

granted full capacity of their Habeas Corpus rights and the ability to control these rights was

extended to African Americans and women over time. Currently, a few species in other countries

have granted specific species some legal rights, Dolphins in India, and Orangutans in Argentina.

(Sad Plight) Sandra the Orangutan was granted Habeas Corpus rights in 2014, however she is

currently still residing in her enclosure in what used to be the Buenos Aires zoo. The court has

agreed that while the original settlement of the case called for her release, making her zoo

enclosure nicer will do for now. Due to her life in captivity, Sandra would not be likely to

survive in the wild as she never had the opportunity to learn necessary survival skills from other

Orangutans.

The non-human rights campaign is suing to have Hercules and Leo be released to an

animal sanctuary, but what makes a sanctuary different than other forms of captivity? The word

sanctuary itself suggests a kind of serene scenery away from human contact, but an animal would

still have to have contact with those that take care of it. According to an article published by

National Geographic, there arent too many differences between zoos and sanctuaries, but there

are also differences between individual entities as well. Like zoos, many sanctuaries have

breeding programs to insure the survival of species. Because of this, its not as if sanctuaries are
awaiting the death of the remaining animals in captivity, they are continuing to produce animals

and besides breeding programs that plan to release to the wild, these new animals will remain in

captivity. While many sanctuaries still make money from public visitors, zoos are more often run

for a profit and are known to be more capitalistic. Entities that market their animals to the public

are required to undergo inspection by the USDA to comply with the Animal Welfare Act.

However, this indicates that private entities which do not market their animals to the public are

not required to undergo inspection. This potentially leaves animals in places that are unfit to care

for them and allows this kind of treatment to continue. The enforcement of the Animal Welfare

Act upholds the minimum standards that facilities must abide by and protects animals under

human care.

Would it not be a better starting point to encouraging better legal standards of care across

the board for captive animals? There are certain organizations such as the Association of Zoos

and Aquariums (AZA) that promote exceeding these minimum standards and attaining a higher

standard of care. Organizations like the AZA promote better animal keeping by placing

minimum standards on things such as animal enrichment, space requirements and even species

conservation plans. By creating stricter standards that can be enforced upon all entities, you

create a higher standard by which animals are cared for. Entities unable to match these standards

would be unable to continue to care for animals thereby shrinking the number of places that may

not have been the star examples of what a care facility should be.

Peter Singer, a world-renowned philosopher and animal activist, does not believe that

animals should be in captivity. Singer believes that no matter the intelligence of an animal, if a

being suffers, that suffering should be prevented, If a being suffers there can be no moral

justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration... To mark this boundary by
some other characteristic like intelligence or rationality would be to make it in an arbitrary

manner. (Singer pg.8) While the main argument made by the nonhuman rights movement relys

on the intelligence of Hominids, Singer believes this kind of view is subjective and is not

reasonable. Animals in captivity, or more specifically animals that become test subjects for

science, often do not have the best lives or quality of care. The Chimpanzees Hercules and Leo,

are kept as subjects for scientific tests and are not kept in conditions that are similar to their

habitat in the wild. Some testing centers keep their subjects in conditions similar to a solitary

confinement cell one would find in a human prison. (Gartland) Depriving them of their natural

surroundings that stimulate their natural behaviors causes suffering to animals and should not be

common practice for any animal in captivity.

As of 2016, the custody of Hercules and Leo along with 218 other chimps that also

resided at medical research facilities was released to an Ape sanctuary. The initial case was

dismissed because of a previous cases precedent in that jurisdiction. (Gartland) Apes are not

well suited for a lives under human care because of their complex mental and social needs.

While Habeas Corpus rights have been extended past people in the past, it has not necessarily

been successful in guaranteeing their release. Speaking of release, release to where? It may be

necessary and even more productive to reevaluate and raise the average required care and

maintenance that animals in captivity are required to receive before their personhood can be

won.
 Literature Cited

De Waal, F. (2017). Are we smart enough to know how smart animals are? New York: W.W.

Norton & Company. (pp. 26)

Gartland, A. (2016, May 05). Freedom for research chimps: Hercules and Leo set to go to a

sanctuary. Retrieved August 05, 2017, from

https://time2transcend.wordpress.com/2016/05/05/freedom-for-research-chimps-hercules-and-

leo-set-to-move-to-a-sanctuary/

Mountain, M. (2017, July 06). New York Justice Denies Habeas Corpus Relief for Hercules and

Leo Given Precedent Set in Previous Case, 'For Now'. Retrieved August 05, 2017, from

https://www.nonhumanrights.org/blog/new-york-justice-denies-habeas-corpus-relief-for-

hercules-and-leo-given-precedent-set-in-previous-case-for-now/

Sad plight of Sandra the orangutan: Two years after being granted human rights in a landmark

ruling, she still remains locked up in her cage inside an abandoned zoo. (2016, September 29).

Retrieved August 05, 2017, from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3812992/In-

Argentina-freedom-distant-Sandra-orangutan.html

Servick, K. (2013, April 2). Psychiatry Tries to Aid Traumatized Chimps in Captivity. Retrieved

August 05, 2017, from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/psychiatry-comes-to-the-aid-

of-captive-chimps-with-abnormal-behavior/

Shea, R. (2017, July 28). Are Wildlife Sanctuaries Good for Animals? Retrieved August 05,

2017, from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140320-animal-sanctuary-

wildlife-exotic-tiger-zoo/
Singer, P. (1976). Animal Liberation. New York, NY: HarperCollins. (pp. 8)