Defending Human Exceptionalism Against Derbyshire's Loss of Faith
John Derbyshire, the NRO writer, had a very interesting article a few days ago describing his loss of Christian faith. I would not have commented upon this piece except for his attempt to tear down human exceptionalism along with his faith.
It is my strong belief that according human beings a special and unique status is essential to the betterment of the world. I explain why Derbyshire is wrong in this First Things blog entry.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 9:27 AM
8 Comments
8 Comments:
Thanks, Kelly. And I think what I wrote is true regardless of whether we are the product of blind evolution, intellegently designed by aliens, or created in the image of God.
Interesting thought ven. I concur, that humans have a larger responsibility than other species.
That said, something Derbyshire said got me thinking....basically, the idea that perhaps humans were "the first" to be moral, in a similar position that the first species to see and understand visible light. Oh - the world that was opened to them.
So, if the world of morality and higher thinking were first opened to humans, is it possible for other species to follow? If so, how should we address other species that might have the capacity to become moral?
Well, it got me thinking....
Royale: You've been thinking about this for some time.
There is an awful lot of anthromorphism that goes on, in my opinion, among those seeking to elevate animal capacities in order to equate them to humans.
If such a thing were to occur, and given the pace of evolution it would take hundreds of thousands of years if it were to happen quickly, I think you would address it like I discussed with regard how we should view elephants that may be seeing themselves in the mirror. It would be a factor in determining the extent and parameters of our duty to treat them humanely.
I'm with you, Ven. The very fact that we alone can be having this discussion is proof positive of our specialness and exceptionalism.
Well, here's the cliff-notes version of my thoughts. Basically, it's a confluence of 3 different streams:
1. a religious ethic.
from buddhism (gentleness), Christ's Sermon on the mount (treat others, including other species the way you want you to be treated), generic monotheism (if God created the world, including other species, it's God's property, not ours. we are tenants)
2. a secular ethic - I believe that the human brain sets humans apart from other animals, anatomically, morally, etc...and nervous system has largely become the deciding factor in where I stand in just about all these bioethical issues. pain, self-awareness, potentially for brain, or respect for a dead brain...that's how I think. it's my lingua franca.
3. political pragmatism.
I think both WSJ's human exceptionalism ethic and the environmental/ animal rights ethic essentially make the same argument, but talk past each other. effectively, both can be strengthened by incorporating the other by emphasizing ALL life.
if chimps are important, then the unborn should be as well, and vice versa. it makes logical sense to me.
where all this leads is another matter, but I think it's a start.
Marci: I have thought some about how we are often more receptive to animals than to each other. I think it has to do with a projected innocence that we long for in a world that too often is filled with cruelty, deceipt, etc. I think we romanticize animals, which is fine, until it too becomes corrupted as in the animal rights movement.On the other hand, sometimes, we are gratuitously cruel to them too, often an early sign of serious mental illness.
Royale: Thanks for your serious and morally interesting views. I reject personhood theory for reasons I have made quite clear, but there is always room for greater care for all life.
Marci: No fun being a feral animal. I was in Mexicali earlier this year and saw an awful lot of very sad and sick looking stray dogs. There are "no kill" shelters now, but I wonder about whether this is a wise use of resources and energy. Think of the human needs that go unmet. Still, I support anyone who serves others, be it humans or others.
That being said, there is a moral hierarchy of life that we ignore at our substantial peril. Sometimes, I think our love for animals is a yearning for innocence that we cannot find with people, other than the youngest children.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home