"In Defense of Human Exceptionalism"
I have a piece up today over at First Things about the latest attack on human exceptionalism--animal ensoulment--published, no less, in the science pages of the New York Times. I review some of the areas in which human exceptionalism is under assault and describe the NYT story. Here are a few central points:
I then quote philosopher Mortimer Adler about how rejecting our unique moral worth simply and merely for being human would justify the strong preying on the weak, and I conclude:How ironic that a report in the science pages of the New York Times would discuss souls respectfully, especially given that the existence or nonexistence of the soul isn't a matter that science can measure, test, or duplicate (as a believing scientist asserts at the end of Dean's piece). Nor is belief in the soul--whether uniquely human or present in all life--necessary to accepting what used to be considered the self-evident truth of human exceptionalism. But that's OK: Whatever it takes to knock us off the pedestal.
It should now be clear to everyone that very powerful forces have totally dedicated themselves for varying reasons to convincing us that we really aren't all that important. Those who think otherwise had better answer the call to defend the intellectual ramparts. Much is at stake. Demolishing our self-perception as a uniquely valuable species would have very grave consequences, given that human exceptionalism is both the philosophical underpinning for human rights and the basis of our unique self-imposed duties to each other, posterity, and the natural world.
As Adler makes clear, "liberating" society's general embrace of human exceptionalism will not "save the planet" as some suppose, nor liberate man from the supposed oppression of superstitious faith. Rather, it would open the door wide to tyranny.The more I think about this, the more important I believe the issue is. I hope y'all agree.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 10:09 AM
9 Comments
9 Comments:
It might have been Lucretius who said release from an intolerable life is as close as the nearest vein. This issue is resolved pretty well for me by the fact that I'm a gun owner.
The ultimate nightmare for a great many people is to become disabled to the point where you are trapped in a pointless life of pain and humiliation. No one has the right to impose that on anyone else. If the key consideration were the possibility of abuse, then we'd have no right of free speech or much else.
Byron: I think you meant to comment on a post about assisted suicide. But thanks for dropping by.
From a reader: "If you have not read John Wesley’s sermon, on the Great Deliverance, you must. It offers a different defense (and condemnation) of human exceptionalism and suggests that God will redeem the parts of creation that we have especially burdened with “ample amends for all their present sufferings.” Of course, for Wesley the case for human exceptionalism is made based on the special relationship that humans can and did have with God."
Thanks. I'll take a look. But I don't believe that faith in God is necessary to a good defense of and assertion for human exceptionalism.
Byron writes:
The ultimate nightmare for a great many people is to become disabled to the point where you are trapped in a pointless life of pain and humiliation.
As someone with a severe disability, I would like to point out that most able-bodied people judge life with a disability based on dark and vague imaginings -- "nightmares" quite literally -- rather than firsthand realities. Even medical personnel consistently rate the lives of their disabled patients as worse than the patients do themselves. (see John Bach's Management of Patients with Neuromuscular Disease for a discussion of this.) Thus people who develop a disability often find that what they imagined as a "pointless life" turns out to be very different.
No one has the right to impose that on anyone else.
Of course, that depends on what you mean by "impose". As you point out, you have your gun. There are many ways even severely disabled people can kill themselves as things stand right now. Sure, they may be violent or painful or slow, and not the individual's ideal method, but they are still there. Assisted suicide is actually more about involving other people to expand the menu of suicide options rather than enabling suicide where it is otherwise impossible.
If the key consideration were the possibility of abuse, then we'd have no right of free speech or much else.
But even free speech has legitimate limits: libel, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, etc. It's a matter of balancing rights and harm. We hold that the potential harm of AS outweighs the claimed benefits.
Anyway, to get back to the topic of human exceptionalism: What I find remarkable is the near-glee that so often marks denunciation of the idea, almost like that of an adolescent amusing himself and inflating his ego by mocking his elders. I wonder how much thought its attackers give to considering which of their own cherished values may in fact require it as a foundation.
BV: I notice that too. Also, I have never been able to get an answer to what, if not our humanity, creates in us duties to the environment, animals, human rights, etc.
Glad to see you finally got hold of MJ Adler's book. He was way ahead of the curve on this subject.
By the way, your conclusion was spot on Mr Smith. If we look at ourselves as nothing more than animals, that is exactly how we will be ruled.
BV, your post reminds me of something Alice Von Hildebrandt once said to a class of philosophy students. She said that if they could give her definitive proof that her ancestors were apes that swung from trees, she would accept that as reality, but she wouldn't BRAG about it.
In my opinion, people who want to think of themselves as just another animal don't set very high standards for themselves.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home