An Australian philosopher and ethics expert says granting chimpanzees ‘personhood’ could build stronger bonds between humans and other animals.

A New York judge has agreed to hear a case that seeks to grant ‘personhood’ to two chimpanzees; the subjects of biomedical experimentation at the University of New York.

If they were deemed to be ‘persons’, the chimps would have greater rights in the eyes of the law, similar to the way corporations and other non-human entities have gained legal personhood in the past.

The case before the New York State Supreme Court will begin soon, after Justice Barbara Jaffe ordered that the state must provide an explanation for why the two young chimps should not be released from captivity.

On the ABC’s Q&A program this week, Mr Singer said it was a good sign.

“That provides the first glimmer of an opening — I wouldn't put it further than that — that possibly the courts are not going to class chimpanzees simply as property, but are going to say that they may have some legal right to be free or to be sent to a sanctuary or something of that sort,” he said.

“The law recognises things that are not human beings as persons — corporations are a clear example. So it would mean that they have standing in court to claim those rights.”

An audience member asked; “If we're going to give chimpanzees certain rights for being intelligent, self-aware and emotionally complex, does that lack of qualities in other animals mean that they will be discriminated against? Who will be their lawyers?”

Mr Singer said basic rights could be granted to other animals.

“I would see that the extension of these basic rights to chimpanzees would be a kind of a bridge that would help to narrow the gulf that I think we now feel exists between humans and animals,” he said.

“So we think there is an enormous difference between humans and all animals, and when we use the term 'animals' we are talking about [everything from] chimpanzees to a snail.

“Whereas we're very closely related to chimpanzees, if you look at our DNA.

“So if we could narrow that gulf a bit and establish a bridge, then there may be benefits that will flow to animals in the longer run.”

Animals rights groups say there are many complex and contradictory reasons why people favour (and believe in the rights of) certain animals over others.

For example, in many Western nations the practice of eating dogs and cats is seen as abhorrent, while slaughtering and consuming animals such as pigs (which have a very similar level of intelligence to dogs) is perfectly acceptable.

Similarly, people tend to draw a line between the respect given to land-based creatures, and those that live in the sea.

Studies have shown that fish do not get anywhere near the same level of regard from humans as other vertebrates, despite having the same emotional and mental capabilities, physical ‘feelings’, societal links and complexity.