The Paradox of the Philosophy of Human Unexceptionalism
There is an interesting and adoring article about Charles Darwin in today's San Francisco Chronicle Insight section. The author, John Darnton, a New York Times journalist, celebrates Darwin's intellect and his supposed turn from theist to atheist. (I have heard otherwise, but have no idea about the nature of his personal beliefs.)
I am not involved in scientific critiques of Darwinian theory. But I do believe in human exceptionalism, whether as a result of evolution, creation, accident, planning, or alien cloning experiments (as ludicrously proposed by the science cult the Raelians).
I bring this up because the article has a key paragraph that demonstrates the paradox of materialistic thinking vis the moral worth of human life. "For ultimately, if animals and plants are the result of impersonal, immutable forces, she [Darwin's biographer Janet Browne] observes, then 'the natural world has no moral validity or purpose.' We are all of us, dogs and barnacles, pigeons and crabgrass, the same in the eyes of nature, equally remarkable and equally dispensable." (My emphasis.)
That last word of the quote is key. Human exceptionalism is the intellectual foundation of human rights. It is our unique and elevated moral status in the known universe that gives rise to both special (human) rights and unique responsibilities. If we ever come to believe we are no more morally meaningful in the world than a barnacle, then why should we act ethically human any more? Why not give in to impulses? Why not drive other species into extinction if that gives us what we want? Why worry about the care of unproductive people? Indeed, why not permit survival of the fittest in human affairs and return to social Darwinism?
And here is a great paradox in all of this: On one hand the materialists keep pounding on the drum of human unexceptionalism. Humans are nothing special, they assert. No big deal. Get over it and embrace the rationality of meaninglessness. Then, quick as a dime, some of these same folk tell us we are obligated to save the planet and sacrifice our own materialistic welfare for others, and to protect endangered species, etc.
But this is utterly illogical. They can't have it both ways. Either we are special, meaning we have unique moral duties--and special rights--or we are not. Ignoring this point, as history demonstrates, is very dangerous. How we perceive ourselves could not be more important, for it determines ultimately how we act.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:09 AM
6 Comments
6 Comments:
I think that is an EXCELLENT summation of the contradictory nature of full-blown materialist philosophy.
How human beings take on the (moral) responsibility of properly caring for the natural world if humans are unexceptional and lack the unique capacity for moral thinking? And how can human rights be said to meaningfully exist and require respect in the face of life's supposed meaningless?
PETA approves of spaying and neutering, as we all do, to prevent the birth of unwanted animals that will live terrible existences. But most liberationists don't believe there should be any domesticated animals of any kind, not even seeing eye dogs. Thus, I suspect that PETA would support the neutering of all cats and dogs so that there will be no new generation of house slaves.
I disagree. There is no paradox.
We are held together by the fact that we generally desire the same thing. We want to live in a healthy environment, and we want those around us to be happy and not harmed, even if it comes at some cost to ourselves. That's our evolved human nature. There is no universal morality, and we don't need one.
As for human rights, these are things defined by what we are willing to fight for.
Humans rarely get morality from philosophy and religion. It's usually the other way around. They pick their philosophy and religion based on their personal moral code. For example, your claims about the invalidity of materialism are not based on science or logic, but on your unwillingness to accept what you see as the logical consequences of materialism. That's the flaw in the logic. Materialism says absolutely nothing about what humans should do with their lives. Those questions are up to us.
Your perceived paradox is based on a misundersanding of the is/ought problem (see David Hume). Saving the environment is a moral issue, and you cannot derive a theory of ontology from a theory on ethics. What we believe to be true in reality should be independent of our subjective desires to feel exceptional. Likewise, you cannot base your morality on objective truths that you observe about reality. See Shoppenhauer's "The World as a Will to Live" for a more detailed analysis for why you are so inclided to make that mistake.
No, I think you both miss the point. No elephant would ever care that the herd destroyed the environment, as elephants do often. No crocodile would care if it ate a member of an endangered species. HUMANS are the only species to think morally. Hence, we ARE exceptional, not unexceptional, not just another animal in the forest. As I stated in my post, this is true regardless of WHY we are exceptional, e.g. an accident of evolution, intelligent design, being created in God's image, or manipulation by space aliens. This uniqueness gives us special rights and unique duties. Thanks for contributing.
In that case you're just playing around with the definition of "exceptional". However, what I said before still stands: just because you claim that we ARE something, has nothing to do with the claim that we SHOULD do something. They exist in completely different frameworks, what we are is objective and outside of our control and what we should do is subjectively decided by us, with no universal criteria. Thanks for clearing it up though.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home