The donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?”– Numbers 22:30
Human beings enjoy legal rights, and these rights are embroidered with responsibility, accountability, respect for other people’s legal rights, fairness, and equality. The quest for animals to be granted legal rights is an open can of worms that wallow all over the tenets of person-hood. If given the legal right, and perchance a member of the group breaks a law, would it be liable for its legal error? We should be reminded of the old adage, what is good for the goose, should be good for the gander.
Chrisanne Grise, in her May 10, 2021 article, entitled Should Animals Have Legal Right(?), highlights that scientists have found various traits in animals that are normally associated with human beings. Consequent to this, academic and legal advocates are promoting the notion that animals should enjoy the recognition of being more than just mere things or properties; they should be elevated to person-hood.
One of the advocates of this line of thought is Kristen Stilt, faculty director of Harvard Animal Law and Policy. Stilt argues that high cognitive animals that have “a very clear sense of their past, present, and future” and have family units, must be recognized or their statuses raised to the level of person-hood. In other words, they are not just things or properties of humans.
Cementing the argument, advocates, who have waged legal battles cite that forests, rivers, corporations have been extended legal personhood statuses, and therefore the animals must also enjoy the elevation.
At the forefront of the battle and in line for the elevation advocates are vying for elephants, chimpanzees, and bears. In New York, 50-year-old Happy’s plight was brought before a judge by Non Human Project, requesting for a writ of habeas corpus (the legal course of action used to object to the wrongful imprisonment). If granted, Happy would be released and sent back into the wild.
It should be noted that Happy has been at the zoo since 1977. However, 32 percent of Americans believe that animals deserve more rights, but quickly add that this call does not include all animals such as farm animals and domesticated animals.
A second push by animal rights advocates involves six-year-old Indonesian monkey Naruto, who got hold of the camera of photographer David Slater. The monkey took several selfies of himself. David published the photos, they went viral on the internet, but a lengthy lawsuit followed when People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) advanced that Naruto should own the copyrights of the photos because he physically pushed the button on the camera.
PETA lost the court case, however, Slater agreed to donate 25 percent of the proceeds to charities that protect Naruto and his fellow macaques.
The call for the endowering of legal rights to animals is only for select animals and not the entire range of species in the animal kingdom. Humans enjoy legal rights, from the ambit of justice; this calls for the recipients to engage the mode of responsibility, accountability, respect for others, fairness, and embrace equality of all before the law.
The advocates for elevating some animals to person-hood, appear to be approaching the issue of elevating animals to person-hood, from an emotional platform. They should consider the other side of a person’s rights: these are the five pillars listed above. If accorded the legal rights and person-hood statuses, will the animals be held liable if and when they break the rules that guide human beings? When humans break a law, whether it is killing another person, stealing, or trespassing, what follows are a variety of penalties that could include a fine, community work, or a jail sentence being meted out to the felon or criminal.
While the lawsuits sound interesting and make powerful arguments on the promotion of how we should live in harmony with all created living beings for mutual benefit, however, animal legal rights advocates should note that legal rights are not yet there for all living human beings. We are not there yet where all human beings everywhere have legal rights or even treated as human beings should be treated.
No, animals should not be given legal rights, nor should they be elevated to person-hood.