Stephen Jay Gould on Human Exceptionalism
A reader of my recent article in National Review Online about Peter Singer's approval of research conducted on monkeys, misunderstood me as perhaps not caring about cruelty to animals. I care very much about such matters, of course, and mentioned in my reply that treating animals humanely is a moral duty arising out of our exceptionalism as a species.
My correspondent inquired how I define human exceptionalism, and sent along a very interesting opinion piece by the late Stephen Jay Gould, in which the author espouses a distinctly evolutionary understanding of the exceptional difference being human makes. From "The Human Difference," New York Times, July 2, 1999 (no link available, my italics):
"[E]volution does provide a legitimate criterion of genuine and principled separation between Homo sapiens and any other species. But the true basis of distinction lies in topology and genealogy, not in any functional attribute marking our superiority. We are linked to chimpanzees (and more distantly to any other species) by complete chains of intermediate forms that proceed backward from our current state into the fossil record until the two lineages meet in a common ancestor. But all these intermediate forms are extinct, and the evolutionary gap between modern humans and chimps therefore stands as absolute and inviolate. In this crucial genealogical sense all humans share equal fellowship as members of Homo sapiens. In biological terms, with species defined by historical and genealogical connection, the most mentally deficient among us is as fully human as Einstein.
"If we grasped this fundamental truth of evolution, we might finally make our peace with Alexander Pope's location of human nature on an 'isthmus of a middle state'--that is, between bestiality and mental transcendence."
That's one way of looking at it, and a fine one it is, too. Some might add "spiritual transcendence" and they would also be asserting an eminently defensible position. Frankly, I don't care how or why it happened, the full story about which may never be fully knowable. I only care that we recognize the extraordinary difference being human makes. If we do that, and if we follow the corollary to human exceptionalism, namely human universal moral equality, I think we will be on very solid ground.
Thanks very much to my correspondent for sending the Gould piece along.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 5:57 PM
5 Comments
5 Comments:
The Gould article is available here. Google is your friend.
But I read it rather differently. You left out this text which occurs right before your excerpt:
For starters, the basic formulation of them vs. us, and the resulting search for a "golden barrier," represents a deep fallacy of human thought. We need not fear Darwin's correct conclusion that we differ from other animals only in degree. A sufficient difference in quantity translates to what we call difference in quality ipso facto.
I can't quite make out what Gould's point is, but it seems to be that humans are a distinct species by virtue of the fact that intermediate forms have died off. But the same is true for many other species. He's saying humans constitute a distinct group, but there is nothing special about that group, no "functional attribute marking our superiority". So this is not an argument for human exceptionalism at all. On the other hand he does allow that we have qualitiative differences. It seems very muddled to me.
BTW Wesley, since I usually only comment to disagree I should add that I mostly agree with your posts about PETA and gene patenting.
I've had a look at the Gould piece and he seems to come down somewhere in the sensible middle: there is no one faculty that clearly sets us apart from other species (as Darwin pointed out, even moral sensibility is evident in incipient form in some other social species, and is selected for by evolution), but differences in quantity eventually amount to differences in quality.
But no one (not Peter Singer, not Tom Regan, not Gary Francione) denies that humans typically display exceptional qualities. In this (factual) sense, everyone believes in human exceptionalism. Still, "typically" does not mean "universally", and given that humans vary greatly in their faculties, it does not follow automatically that all are morally equal. (To say that all humans are members of a certain type or species is merely to restate the problem, not to resolve it.) The principle of universal human moral equality, then, must be based on relevant characteristics that all humans have in common with each other -- and that they inevitably have in common with some non-humans. So it seems to me that the only way to make sense of human exceptionalism in the moral sense is to posit divine dispensation for humans. The argument goes something like this:
There are no natural differences between all humans and all non-humans that could ground exceptional moral standing for all humans.
But all humans do have exceptional moral standing.
Therefore universal human moral exceptionalism arises from divine dispensation.
mtraven: That part of Gould seems to be saying that while he rejects that we are different in kind, the difference is quality is so great that it amounts to the same thing, which is why he then launches into the section I quoted. At least, that's my take.
Thanks for hanging out here. Your comments are always welcome.
aeolus: Indeed, that is what some commentators do say, and if we heed them, it is the end of universal human rights. My jaw often drops that some of the most liberal among us, would pursue such an illiberal course.
I disagree with the need for divine dispensation. Gould's point is a secular approach, and he saw the difference as being a true distinction. There are other approaches, which I think will be easier to post due to lenght. Moreover, what is the fundamental purpose of an ethical society? I always thought it was to provide universal human rights. If that is so, then our uniqueness must be presumed to be species-wide and we cannot cull the human herd based on "attributes" or capacities.
Wesley and mtraven:
I like Gould's interpretation of human exceptionalism, but I still prefer Ayn Rand's "humans are an end unto themselves" approach. I seriously recommend her novels ATLAS SHRUGGED and ANTHEM for a better look at her philosophy. I prefer ANTHEM myself, but they're both excellent.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home