I attended a symposium co-organized by Lori Marino at Emory University in February of 2017. I was Lori’s discussant after her presentation. As I had the chance, I asked her how philosophers could be more useful to those, like Lori, seeking to get animals like orcas to sanctuary. Steve was there for that symposium and asking him that question over some beverages after that day’s presentations led him to suggest an amicus brief. He was in Halifax within a month of that symposium for a panel on Unlocking the Cage, and Letitia Meynell and I met him for breakfast the next day to chat about an amicus brief. From there we inquired among friends and colleagues about their interest in such a venture so that when Steve gave us the green light we could start reaching out to various folks. The rest is history.

Kristin: The first paper I ever published, back while I was an MA student, was on the topic of ape personhood (“The First Step in the Case for Great Ape Equality: The Argument for Other Minds” Etica & Animali: The Great Ape Project, August 1996: 131-141). I was inspired to write that paper after reading The Great Ape Project, edited by Paola Cavalieri and Peter Singer, with essays written by an array of famous scientists, philosophers, and public intellectuals, all arguing for personhood rights for apes. When Steven Wise published Rattling the Cage a few years later, I taught his book as part of my course on animal minds and moral standing. By the time Andrew approached me about joining as a co-author for the amicus brief in support of Tommy and Kiko, I had long been convinced that some nonhuman animals should be granted personhood rights, and I was happy to have the opportunity to offer arguments in a venue that might have more of an impact than a philosophy journal.

We decided to turn the brief into a book in order to reach a larger audience. The book is short enough to be read as part of an applied ethics course, and is written at a level that is accessible to the general public. I think it is really important to communicate these arguments to the general public, given that the common law is meant to take into account evolving public opinion and the debate about nonhuman rights is already moving into legislatures in other countries and will soon do the same in the US. If society is going to help determine the transformation of chimpanzees from property to person, society needs to hear the arguments.

Andrew: Kristin is the mastermind behind the book. A contact at Routledge had reached out to her to do something on the brief and so she, in turn, reached out to the group to weigh interest in turning the brief into a short book. It’s a wonderful opportunity to get our work on the brief out to a wider readership that, we hope, can use the book to think through re-imaging how we co-exist with chimpanzees like Kiko and Tommy.

From the outside looking in, I’ve been struck by how extraordinarily well you all seem to work together. Am I correct? If so, how do you explain that? In terms of process, how did you deal with disagreement?

Kristin: We do work well together! And it was a big surprise, since I didn’t know more than half the people in the group when we started working together. I still haven’t met some of them. We quickly came to know one another’s strengths, and divided up the work based on what each of us is best at. I feel so lucky to be working with this great group of people! When it comes to the arguments, as you would expect we did disagree from time to time. But, we were able to find premises that we all agreed on, and from those premises we were still able to make these strong arguments for chimpanzee legal standing.

Syd: Philosophers are not necessarily known for being prosocial, collaborative, and agreeable people! The authors of the brief and the book represent diverse philosophical views—but all of us share a commitment to justice for humans and nonhuman animals, and I think that commitment was motivating enough for us to work through our disagreements, and reach a consensus that we were all comfortable with. As one might expect with such a large and diverse group, sometimes there were strong disagreements, but we worked through them by trying different ways of saying things. As in the law, sometimes a single word can make all the difference. For me, there were times when I got annoyed or frustrated, but I was always keenly aware that there were two lives—Tommy’s and Kiko’s—that were very much at stake, and that we were doing this for them, and not for ourselves.

Andrew: I think we have worked well, even while disagreeing (and, as Syd notes, getting frustrated) from time to time. Philosophers are trained through critically engaging texts, profs, colleagues, and, as we get to know each other, friends. Disagreement isn’t personal, so it doesn’t preclude working together to achieve a common goal (including running departments!). As in many areas of applied ethics, folks can disagree about abstract theories, certain concepts, and even how to defend certain fundamental ethical commitments, and yet share very similar views about what we should do and what we should not do. You start there and work backwards, looking for arguments or analyses that you can all agree on. I think Syd is right, a common unifier through this journey was Kiko and Tommy and our shared desire to see them have a chance to flourish as chimpanzees with other chimpanzees.