Interview: Peter Singer – Deutsche Welle (DW)

Bantu, the gorilla who died in a zoo in the Mexican capital, was one of the last of the Mohicans. DW spoke with Australian philosopher Peter Singer, practice ethical philosopher, referring to animal rights.

Bantu was the only male low-land gorilla, a species native to the African plains that now is endangered, who lived in Mexico. He was born in captivity at the zoo of Chapultepec, at Mexico City, where he was one of the main attractions. Currently there are just under 175,000 individuals of the species in the world, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

Human Rights Committee of Mexico City is still investigating the sudden death of Bantu, presumably happened due to medical malpractice on 7 July 2016. The gorilla, who was 220 kg and more than 1.70 meters tall, suffered a heart attack.

The case of the tragic death of the gorilla resurrects the debate on the rights of animals, especially those who live in captivity. DW spoke to respected philosopher Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and a pioneer of animal rights. Singer is the author of numerous books, including the latest: “The Most Good You Can Do. How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically”.

What do you think of the death of Bantu?

It is always sad when a gorilla dies. It’s something that should make us reflect on our true interests and those of gorillas. There is always a risk that things go wrong.

You are a co-founder of the “Great Ape Project”. What exactly is this project?

It is an effort to establish the basic rights, in particular for the great apes – chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos and orangutans. We know they are very similar to us; that they are complex beings with emotional life, with the ability to reflect on their situation, to think, solve problems, who are aware of themselves, and they can think about the future. The great apes are so similar to humans that we should recognize them some basic rights, essentially the same we call to all members of our own species, whether or not rational, or conscious of themselves. That is the right to life, liberty and protection from torture. We would like the law to recognize them as people, and therefore as beings who can take cases to the courts. Obviously through a defender or advocate, like a child of our society could take a case to the courts.

Terms such as “freedom” and “captivity” are not expressions of our own projections? Isn’t there metaphysical difference between humans and animals, due to our ability to think rationally?

True, but we can not explain these concepts to a two year old, or someone with mental disabilities. But they are not locked, nor we display or perform medical experiments as we do with great apes. Fortunately in many countries experiments on great apes were banned and this, I believe, is due in part to the work of the “Great Ape Project”. If we think that all human beings have basic rights, regardless of their ability to reason or think, or think of freedom as an abstraction, but we deny those rights to chimpanzees and gorillas, it is to believe that only our species has rights. It is not acceptable. This is much like racism and sexism.

Some see in zoos a place where you can learn to respect animals…

There is no evidence that looking at the animals in captivity incites our concern about them. I assume that one of the most important lessons that humans learn in zoos and its cages is that we have the right to lock up animals and use them primarily as entertainment. I believe that education lessons would be smarter if they could live a life more according to its kind. We would understand more about them, and also would feel more respect for them.

You are a supporter of the philosophical movement called Preference Utilitarianism. What has this to do with animals?

I am an utilitarian. I believe that the right action is one that has the best consequences. What are these consequences? The classic utilitarian deals with pleasure and pain. The preference utilitarian concerns with the satisfaction of preferences. For both utilitarian forms, it is clear that animals are part of the equation because they experience pain and pleasure, and also have their preferences. And we have no justification to assign less value to those preferences or those pleasures and pains, just because they are not members of our species. That is why I firmly believe that animals have a kind of moral status, and this implies in terms that take into account their own interests.

In your book “Animal Liberation” (1975), pioneer of animalistic movement, you write about the domination of men over animals. The increased interest in vegetarianism and the protection of animals is a sign of this shift in consciousness?

Today there is a greater interest in animal rights, and part of that, no doubt, has to do with changes in our diet, the efforts to avoid the consumption of animal products, coming from industrialized farms. It is also recognized, more than that, that it is not environmentally sustainable and contributes to climate change.

You travel a lot. What differences have you found regarding to the protection and animal husbandry?

I have seen significant progress in Europe in recent decades, particularly in industrialized farms. Some of the worst confinement has been prohibited, such as, for example, the standardized cages for chickens to put their eggs. I understand that these are advances that do not exist in Latin America, because they need to modernize their laws. Also on animal research, in the cosmetics industry. There are problems not only in Latin America but also in Asia. Like in China, where they fiercely debate on animal welfare.

Why do you think it is so hard to improve the living conditions of animals in zoos?

It is always difficult to make changes contrary to pre-established interests. Zoos have been doing what they do for a long time. Therefore, it is not easy to understand that their practices are not good and that must change. Especially when there are zoos in urban areas, with limited dimensions and without appropriate conditions. They should dramatically reduce the amount of animals and varieties of species that they possess. But the biggest concern is that people do not visit zoos anymore. This is a constant struggle. We should take zoos in urban areas and take them out of the cities, where they would turn into wild parks, offering animals decent living conditions.

Source (in Spanish): http://www.dw.com/es/la-dignidad-de-los-grandes-simios-es-inviolable/a-19403352