>Just so, it is reasonable to stand inside the
>boundary "human" and yet question it. In rejecting the
>challenge, others can ignore the question, that is, they can
>appeal implicitly to their power, or they can (re)construct
>"human" in such a way as to permit the continuance of their
>beliefs and practices. As I've pointed out, this reconstruction
>is full of pitfalls of both the logical and the historical
>sort, e.g. deciding that some beings are privileged on account
>of their genes has had some very bad outcomes in history.
>And we know that mere science, undirected by ideology, does
>not do the desired trick, because it inconveniences by coming
>up with evidence of consciousness, sentience, affections,
>intelligence, will, communication, complex social structure,
>and even a sort of ethical practice among non-humans -- all
>the things that are supposed to distinguish humans are found
>on the other side of the line.
The seed of consciousness was planted in the mind of the ape. The "Common Ancestor," about which we have no fossil evidence, lived about five million years ago and produced two offspring-- chimpanzees and australopithecus. In the descendents of australopithecus, consciousness matured and eventually gave rise to abstraction, from which we get ego, intellect, language, and culture. So, even chimps, with their germ of consciousness, have none of the other qualities that define human beings.
It's extremely difficult to demonstrate consciousness in nonhumans. Here's an example of a successful experiment, as described by Richard Leakey, in *The Origin of Humankind*:
"An adult male chimpanzee was alone in a feeding area when a box was opened electronically, revealing the presence of bananas. Just then, a second chimp arrived, whereupon the first one quickly closed the box and ambled off nonchalantly, looking as though nothing unusual was afoot. He waited until the intruder departed, and then quickly opened the box and took out the bananas. However, he had been tricked. The intruder had not left but had hidden, and was waiting to see what was going on. The would-be deceiver had been deceived."
Of course, deception is standard fare in the animal kingdom. But this example reveals something unusual-- an "honest act" from the normal repertoire of behaviors employed in such a way as to mislead even familiar individuals. This is called "tactical deception." The first chimp revealed his suspicion of the second chimp's thoughts by trying to manipulate those thoughts through the deceptive use of an otherwise normal action. The second chimp revealed not merely the capacity to deceive the first but even the realization that the first had tried to deceive him. In surmising the thoughts of each other, both chimps conclusively revealed awareness of mentality, i.e. consciousness.
Just because chimps are aware of their minds doesn't mean they're able to use this awareness the way we do. Only humans can reflect on their socially-ingrained habitual patterns of thought and learn to overcome them, in the process defining themselves individually. Only humans can attain autonomy and free will. So there's no philosophical basis for the idea that it's wrong to keep animals, even chimps, as pets. Obviously they should be treated with the same respect that's due to all living things. Of course, living things are prone to eating other living things, so it is not disrespectful to eat the flesh of animals. But it is disrespectful, for instance, to keep pigs in cramped pens under artificial light all their lives. You don't have to believe that there's no essential difference between animals and humans to see that. As to experiments on animals, there's no definitive solution that covers all examples. It's just a matter of using common sense, case-by-case.
Ted