Project Nim (2011)
Documentary
Directed by James Marsh
Written by Elizabeth Hess
Starring: Nim Chimpsky, Stephanie LaFarge and Herbert Terrace
My Rating: 7.4/10
Plot: Tells the story of a chimpanzee taken from its mother at birth and raised like a human child by a family in a brownstone on the upper West Side in the 1970s.
SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT
TOPIC: ANIMAL WELFARE VS ANIMAL RIGHTS IN PROJECT NIM
“Systematic concern for animal welfare can be based on awareness that non-human animals are sentient and that consideration should be given to their well-being, especially when they are used by humans”. – Wikipedia
“Animal rights is the idea that some or all nonhuman animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives, and that their most basic interests – such as an interest in not suffering – should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of human beings.” – Wikipedia
I watched this film a few weeks ago for a subject ‘Sex, Race, Species and Social Justice’ (yes, they really did try to cram everything in there). This film, combined with the course syllabus, has been one of the most (and very few) interesting topics I have studied at university.
Even if you stop reading here, I would recommend still watching the film if you even remotely like chimpanzees/apes in general. It isn’t overly pushy on the animal welfare/rights stance, and it’s definitely an interesting experiment.
So the first thing I learnt is that there are two stances concerning animal rights. There is an ‘Animal Welfare’ position and an ‘Animal Rights’ position. So first, I’ll describe these two in further detail, and then get to the ideas expressed in the film.
Animal Welfare (Peter Singer)
This is basically taking a utilitarian stance on the issue of the usage of animals. What Singer is basically saying is that to say that animals have the same rights as us is wrong, because in order for equal rights to exist, equality must be present. So, for example, if we were to argue for rights, it would be like giving men the right to an abortion, or dogs the right to vote.
Instead, Singer is arguing that “The basic principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration” which in turn will lead to “different rights” for “different beings”.
Singer also discusses a term called “speciesism” (just rolls of the tongue, doesn’t it). Which is basically the idea that we put our own species above any other species. So, we cannot say that animals do not suffer, simply because they are another species.
We, as a race, also use the argument of intellect as a justification – that is, animals do not know what ‘having a life’ actually means, all they understand is survival and to escape pain. Singer uses ‘marginal cases’ to demonstrate that this is not a good enough reason. Singer says that if intellect is a driving force in how we treat animals, then that should be applied to other humans as well who are not able to completely fathom what it means to live and to die. Examples of humans of lesser intellect may include, but are not limited to, foetuses, newborns, disabled, and the comatose.
Singer argues that what is most important is that animals do not suffer needlessly. That is, it is okay for the animals to suffer if the benefit to humans outweighs the animal’s suffering – that we should minimise animal suffering as much as possible. Hence the utilitarian view – you judge the action according to the consequences.
This view normally exists in vegetarianism, which rejects the commercial use, since our enjoyment of eating meat is not justifiable enough for the animal’s suffering to become our meat (ie battery cages, hormones, etc).
Animal Rights (Tom Regan)
Animal Rights on the other hand presents this idea of “subject-of-a-life” – which is identified as having beliefs, desires, memory, feelings, self-consciousness, emotional life, sense of own future, and initiates action to pursue goals. (Have you seen the video of a dog risking its life to save another dog?)
Tom Regan argues that an individual who has subject-of-a-life cannot be used in a range of ways without any importance placed on human benefit, and that they have rights regardless of the possible consequential benefit that it may bring to another.
This includes being used in any sort of way – for meat, or milk, or even as pets. This view is usually found in vegans, where they don’t use any sort of animal product.
Project Nim
So this brings me to the discussion of Project Nim. Interestingly, the film takes both the welfarist and the rights approach at different times. Nim is taken as an infant from his mother for an experiment to see if Chimpanzee’s were capable of communication (as human’s know it). The journey follows his advancement in vocabulary through signing. Now, at this point it seems to be the welfarist approach, because he is not suffering, and is like a pet.
However, as the story progresses, people enter and exit Nim’s life as it pleases them. His only company is human, and then is forced to socialise with other chimpanzees in a centre, and is commissioned for an animal-testing centre. We can see a very ‘rights’ based sympathy building here.
As news breaks about the possibility of this smart chimp being used for animal-testing, the argument that the documentary and the people in Nim’s life use is that his intellect is ‘superior’ to others (which takes the welfarist approach), and thus he should be saved. However, I found this to be critical of the welfarist approach because it begs the question: what happens to the other chimps that aren’t of high intellect? Does that mean that they are less worthy of being saved?
I find that this pro-rights approach continues until the end, but also mixes with the welfarist approach, when Nim is moved into the Black Beauty Ranch. He is moved to a perfectly adequate enclosure, however the caretakers fail to understand why Nim is not happy. As his human companions forget him, he is left in isolation. This suggests that it is wrong for us to remove Nim for whatever reason, from his natural habitat because his suffering is so unnecessary and cruel.
REFERENCES/RELATED SOURCES/FURTHER READING
- Singer, Peter (1990) ‘Chapter One’, Animal Liberation. London, CAPE.
- Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare, Provisional Draft (2011), Available at the ‘Animals Matter to Me’ website http://www.animalsmatter.org/
- Francione, G.L. and Garner, R. (2010), The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?, Columbia: Columbia University Press, pp. 4-27.
i screen, you screen. we all screen! 