The Exceptional Species Tries to Save Two Sick Whales
Interfering with the cold, pitiless, purposelessness of natural selection, the exceptional species continues to strive mightily to save two apparently sick whales lost in the Sacramento River, (who may have been hit by a boat propeller). The effort has made newspapers throughout the country and in the world. Exhibiting the profound empathy of which only human beings are capable of consistently exhibiting, we are spending significant resources and time attempting to help creatures who are indifferent to human cares and woes. Well, good for us. Indeed, we are unique in the known universe.
Oh, and for those who say we have a duty to the whales because human activity may have caused their plight--that too is a statement of human exceptionalism. We are the only species who have moral duties. Again, good for us.
Labels: Human Exceptionalism. Empathy
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 7:00 AM
33 Comments
33 Comments:
We're the only species with moral duties? mmmm, that statement presumes a lot.
I'm no chimp expert, but chimps can fabricate lies and I'm sure they can be trained to only tell the truth. If that can give rise to a self-aware moral duty for chimps, well, that would be an interesting study.
That said, what about all the other extinct Homo species? I guess we'll never know if they achieved what we would call, morality.
This says nothing about the possibility of far more advanced alien species. That would be the death-nail of human exceptionalism.
"This says nothing about the possibility of far more advanced alien species. That would be the death-nail of human exceptionalism."
Ha! We'll cross that bridge if and when! Until such time, humans reign as the remarkable species. I just don't understand people's antagonism toward accepting our exceptionalism and the rights and duties that status entails.
heh, I love the between the lines point of this post. Environmentalists believe in evolution and survival of the fittest, yet they are constantly fighting against these principals trying to save unfit species from extinction, etc.
I recognize human exceptionalism, that's not the problem. But I think the verdict is still out as to the extent morality (the issue in this post) is present in other species.
If you want to conflate morality with human exceptionalism, then I can't join you.
Matthew,
There are different schools of thought among environmentalists.
Some want to minimize human impact on other species. Thus, if it would have died in nature, we should do nothing (this was the issue with the polar bear in at the Berlin zoo).
Others think that if 2 big whales died in a massive fresh water source, such as an inland river, it would be a human health tragedy.
Others of the animal welfare philosophy, want to minimize animal suffering. Oftentimes, the scale of importance depends on how cute the animal is. Others think that all animals are important, regardless of cuteness.
Others think that saving 2 big whales in an inland river makes good TV.
Empathy and charity are not unique to humans. Dolphins quite commonly rescue swimmers out at sea. St. Bernards rescue mountain climbers who have collapsed in the cold.
Humans should not exploit animals just because we can kill them without them declaring war on us.
(Ha! We'll cross that bridge if and when! Until such time, humans reign as the remarkable species. I just don't understand people's antagonism toward accepting our exceptionalism and the rights and duties that status entails.)
The sad fact remains that human exceptionalism is responsible for our hubris and superiority complex. It is what justifies the subjugation and inhumane treatment of animals, among other things, such as the patenting of life.
Tony: There you go again: Dolphins do not "quite commonly" rescue swimmers. There have been occasional, anecdotal reports, which is why I used the term "consistently exhibiting" in my post.
And St. Bernards are TRAINED by us to do that. They wouldn't do it on their own. And wolves, from which humans designed dogs, would eat the injured hiker.
Tony: We ARE superior. But it is our exceptionalism that requires us to treat animals humanely. Go to Africa. Animals don't treat each other humanely in any fashion. It is pure tooth and claw, viscious, unrelenting, and merciless.
What's your point? Animals need food to survive. When was the last time you saw an animal kill for sport? Only humans engage in such activities.
And as for predators, it's in their interests to kill their prey cleanly and instantly to prevent escape. This is also good for the prey, as it is quite painless. That's quite a difference from how humans treat the elderly in nursing homes.
So in some ways, we are *less* moral than animals are.
It's kind of pathetic to cite stories like this as evidence of human exceptionalism, sort of like bragging. It seems like a form of insecurity. It is especially pathetic to claim that humans are more moral than other animals. Only humans practice massive industrial scale slaughter of both human and non-human animals, and I don't see that we have anything to brag about in the morality department. We may have a uniquely advanced sense of morality, but we violate it as much as adhere to it.
There is no doubt that humans are different from other animals in many ways. There is a good deal of doubt about what those ways are and what that entails. For instance, we have a monopoly on languages with complex syntax, but we don't have a monopoly on communication. We have a monopoly on codified moral laws, but not on altruistic behavior. Etc.
What's pathetic, mtraven, is human self loathing. It can't lead to any place good.
Of course we are more moral than animals because animals are not moral at all. They are not immoral. Animals are not moral beings at all. Any morality we assign to them, comes from within ourselves.
We are in a wholly different category. And we should embrace that, rather than disdain or reject it as "bragging," because doing so increases the likelihood of not acting anti human by engaging in some of the very immoral activities you mention.
Well... i'm still waiting for the first laws prohibiting lions from eating their prey.. or prohibiting chimps from murdering other chimps... or prohibiting those lovely dolphins from raping and killing their own... if you want a better argument for human excepcionalism... look no further... oh and:
Said by Tony Jones - "When was the last time you saw an animal kill for sport? Only humans engage in such activities."
My friends cat. He's more than well fed and still hunts mice for his entertainment... 8)
Read this and be better informed: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/mar2002/1017169787.Zo.r.html
Cheers!
I largely agree with Tony, but I've seen animals hunt and kill for sport too. My cat would tear the limbs off insects, watch them flop around, and then leave them without eating. It left a big mess, fortunately, it was confined to the basement.
Then there's killer whales that would play volleyball with sea lions.
As for codified animal morality, I think it would be an interesting study to see if chimps/dolphins do consider it a social tabou to kill certain chimps/dolphins, say within their own family or clan. Whereas those outside the familial relation would be far game.
If so, I would think that would be analogous to human behavior, notably the dichotomy between our domestic laws and warfare.
Relatedly, if anyone ever proves that the Homo eretus, Australapithacus, etc...ever had religion, then Homo sapien exceptionalism would go out the window.
Actually... if they had proven nay of our antecestors had religion... our excepcionalism wouldnt go out the window.... those species are dead and buried. And even if alien species arrived and began peaceful contacts with human civilization.. it still wouldnt go out the window.... we would still be pretty excepcional among planet earth's species. (Somehow i doubt that extraterrestrial species are giving equal moral status to the lesser species among them...)
Oh and as far as animal behaviour... chimps... gorillas.. dolphins all exibit a level of society ethical behaviour... but i dont see that as a basis for destroying our excepcionalism... somehow excepcionalism lies on our hability to go the the moon, codify morality on law, and dream (and attempt) an utopian moral life. We definitely have a deeper relation to morality than other apes. Simple pratical examples like "police stations" prove it. :P
oh and... moral laws come hand in hand with moral duties... let's try giving a complex set of moral laws to a group of chimps and lets see if they abandon their "savage" ways. Good luck with that!
So, isn't this whole debate about the scale of human exceptionalism, rather than the pieces themselves?
Whatever we look at - tookmaking, creativity, altruism, morality, intelligence - we can find it other species. It's just the scale that is different.
Of course, this whole discussion is highly self-congratulative as it values what we consider important.
Consider biomass - humans don't win there, that belongs to insects (cumulative among species) and giant trees (the largest organisms).
Consider survivability of the species - cockroaches and sharks have been around almost unchanged for 100s million years. If I were to wager, I bet in another 100 million years, the cockroach will still be around pretty much unchanged whereas humans will either be extinct or morph into a different body plan.
But as for the extinct humans, if we can find religion in extinct humans, then that would make a very big deal. Wesley would have to qualify his grandiose statements of human exceptionalism with "extant".
I agree wholeheartedly with Wesley.
I too am mystified by the self-loathing that goes on by some in the animal rights community. What is the big deal about saying we are the superior species?
Chimps and dolphins, for example, do not sit around discussing ways to protect their own species, let alone another-- nor do they explore the world around them or the cosmos above. We, on the other hand, are insatiably curious, quick to empathize both with our own species and others and we consistently create as no other species can.
And Royale, personally I'm more than a little disappointed in cockroaches. They may have survivability down but after supposedly being here for hundreds of millions of years I would think that their "superiority" would have played out in some other area beside their ability to withstand enviromental assaults.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tony Jones Said = "The sad fact remains that human exceptionalism is responsible for our hubris and superiority complex. It is what justifies the subjugation and inhumane treatment of animals, among other things, such as the patenting of life."
The sad fact remains that human exceptionalism is responsible for the only available way for milions of poor people worldwide to feed themselves. Killing animals for feeding purposes? How savage of them! The Lion holds himself superior over it's prey but the human is deemed horrible by feeding on lesser species.
Isnt this the spirit of thousands of vegans? Theirs is the most pathetic slap on the face on human suffering.
Oh and people! Just read this one:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=191730
As for saying that "humans are the superior species," I have no problem beyond the inherent circularity and self-congratulative nature of the statement.
Well, look on the bright side. You can comfort yourself with the knowledge that it is only we humans, in our superiority, who can engage in philosophical logic and self-congratulations.
That's precisely my point. It's only humans - that we know of - who care about philosophical logic and self-congratulations. So, to hold human inventions as the standard of superiority begs circularity.
I hope this comment doesn't get too off topic, but I find this discussion quite interesting and thought I'd add a few things (or ramble about a few things is more like it ;-) ). First off, isn't logic, like math, not so much something we have invented but a set of universal properties we have been able to discover through our intellect (although I know that some would argue that it is merely a function-or even a limitation-of our brains)? This would suggest that we are at least superior in our ability to understand the world around us and actually think about ethics and morality as opposed to just acting ethical out of instinct or custom, and it would also mean that we alone have an obligation to use that understanding for the benefit of other creatures that lack this understanding. Although I know that using the the human ability to reason as proof of our exceptionalism does have some problems, the main one being that it suggests that people to don't have reasoning ability are somehow less worthy, which I certainly don't believe, although I would be interested in knowing if there are ways avoid this conclusion.
I think one could also argue that humans, as a species, have an abstract concept of "ought" when it comes to ethics, a concept I seriously doubt any other species has been able to grasp-I would assume that ethical systems among other species are mostly instinctive and for the sole purpose of survival. Certainly animals and humans can make other animals act a certain way using rewards (approval, positive feedback) or punishment, but this is not the same thing as thinking that one ought to do something, understanding why, and doing it even if it would result in punishment, or thinking that one ought not do something and not doing it even if doing it would have resulted in a reward (I know this brings up the same problem I mentioned above since some people don't understand right and wrong; my own theistic worldview takes care of the problem but I am curious as to whether or not there is a more secular solution...) This would be a significant and solid difference between humans and the rest of the animal world and inherently means that we have certain duties, including duties towards animals; animals only have duties to other animals insofar as their instinctive morals prompt them to act in certain ways towards them. Of course, this argument assumes that a transcendent moral law exists-or, at the very least, that human ethics didn't simply arise to help us survive; without either assumption the argument is probably quite weak at least as far as exceptionalism goes, since it would probably mean that human ethical behavior is not that different from the ethical behavior of other animals, just more complex.
I am fairly satisfied with these (and other) explanations, but I wonder if part of that isn't a result of my theistic worldview, which makes belief in human exceptionalism pretty easy from a logical standpoint. I am very curious as to how the case for human exceptionalism can be made from a more materialistic and/or non-theistic viewpoint-if it can, that is (I should add that I think this blog has done an excellent job of making the case for human exceptionalism accessible to people of all worldviews). I wonder if it is possible to see human morality and ethics as exceptional and something more than a survival mechanism through the lens materialism and/or non-theism, for instance. I am not sure all of our other capabilities are merely a matter of degree (although some certainly are)-I think we stand out quite a bit in terms of our ability to reason, to understand the world around us, and our creativity, although I know there are some weaknesses with all of those examples and I suppose that, unless some sort of argument assuming transcendence is used, using those examples as arguments for human exceptionalism would make the arguments circular. I wish I knew more about philosophy and logic so I could tackle that one...
As far as other hominid species having religions and such goes, I think of them as kind of a bridge between other animals and ourselves. Their religious beliefs, ethics, art, ability to reason, etc. were probably not as advanced as those of humans (I'm pretty sure those of Neanderthals weren't). Now that that bridge has disappeared, there is, I think, a discrete difference between humans and other animals.
Well, Wesley, if empathy and moral awareness makes us human, then Terri Schiavo was not a human during the last 15 years of her existence, since she did not have either of those qualities.
I agree with gwenhwyfar.
Royale: Do I understand you correctly? You are arguing that we are projecting our values on animals in an effort to make ourselves exceptional but then you are using statistics and values to argue that animals are our equals?
And Tony, from the view of human exceptionalism, Terri had a right to life because she was human. The smartest chimpanzee may be able to accomplish many of the same things as my three-year-old but all chimpanzees are not as capable as the average adult human. I am not an engineer but I can appreciate the work that goes into building a bridge. I am not an astronaut but I can appreciate the effort and work that goes into a shuttle voyage and I am not a judge but I can appreciate the concept of justice. We do not have degrees of being human based on our abilities. The right to life of Terri and others like her should be irrevocable-- simply because they are human.
There are degrees of ability both in humans and other animals but, as a whole, humans are exceptional for many reasons.
I don't doubt that many animals are intelligent. That's a given and no one is arguing otherwise. But degrees of species intelligence do factor in here. As well as a number of areas in which we stand out-- such as morals, logic, faith and creativity.
Tony makes a good point. Albeit, I'd phrase it differently.
If (morality, intelligence, creativity, etc...) lays the foundation of human exceptionalism and we derive our own self-value from that, then perhaps the foundations of human exceptionalism should be the bases of personhood.
My critique of that - that would make human worth subjective to the foundations of human excpetionalism, but aside from that, it is far more intellectually honest than conception-personhood.
Laura,
Apparently, you missed my point. I've never once argued, nor believed, nor even considered the hypothetical that humans are equal to animals. But I find it an interesting connundrum that the very things that humans assert as making us superior to other animals, are things that only humans care about. For instance, the lowly cockroach couldn't care less about human art, religion, or morality. To my knowledge, they have no equivalent.
So, how does art, religion, or morality make humans superior to cockroaches other than us saying that art, religion, and morality makes a "superior" species.
Without any cockroach equivalent, it makes cross-species suspect, in my book.
But if we do look at the more objective measures of species "superiority", say survivability or length of time on earth, we lose.
(And Tony, from the view of human exceptionalism, Terri had a right to life because she was human. The smartest chimpanzee may be able to accomplish many of the same things as my three-year-old but all chimpanzees are not as capable as the average adult human. I am not an engineer but I can appreciate the work that goes into building a bridge. I am not an astronaut but I can appreciate the effort and work that goes into a shuttle voyage and I am not a judge but I can appreciate the concept of justice. We do not have degrees of being human based on our abilities. The right to life of Terri and others like her should be irrevocable-- simply because they are human.)
Well, if that's your argument, then DNA defines "personhood" not "morality" or anything like that.
Which would put even unfertilised eggs and skin cells on the same level of an adult human being. So to avoid ridiculous comparisons such as those, you'd have to value something like consciousness, or at least the level of consciousness than humans possess, more than simply being "human".
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tony Jones said = "Which would put even unfertilised eggs and skin cells on the same level of an adult human being. So to avoid ridiculous comparisons such as those, you'd have to value something like consciousness, or at least the level of consciousness than humans possess, more than simply being "human"."
Actually one would just have to define personhood as being a property of alive individuals of species of higher inteligence... wich acording to the very definiton of "individual" (an unfertilized egg isnt gonna grow on it's own as a full human being.. at least not on the real world.) would completely eliminate such ridiculous comparisons.
But if one would choose consciousness as the absolute consideration for personhood... then newborn humans are just fu%ed up... acording to the latest philosofical rumblings of peter singer and daniel dennet... they have no self consciousness... wich ultimately delimitates moral significance so...
let's just kill babies at will.
for proof of what i just said about newborn consciousness: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0014-1704(199610)107%3A1%3C129%3ATMSOPS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K
So who's got the most utterly ridiculous definiton of personhood now?
You decide.
P.S. nobody on this world counts morally as a person until their on my phonebook. 8)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home