"Ape Rights:" Not Taking it Seriously is Precisely the Wrong Approach
Begin rant:
The animal rights crowd has many allies in their fight to elevate animals to the moral equivalents of human life. One is the media, that almost always misses the big point and treats their advocacy as merely about being "nicer to animals." Another are all those folk in the media and out who hear about stories such as this and rather than really focusing on what it all means, instead roll their eyes and go about their business with a chuckle, dismissing the matter as just another example about how ridiculous some things have become.
The latter approach was taken by the NY Post, reporting the story under "Weird but True." From the story:
In Spain, all men and simians are created equal. The country's parliament approved a resolution extending the right to life and freedom to great apes. "This is a historic day in the struggle for animal rights and in defense of our evolutionary comrades," said Pedro Pozas of the Great Apes Project. Hey, try "evolutionary comrade" next time you want to call someone a big ape.This is utterly inadequate. And it helps their cause tremendously by allowing animal rights ideologues to continue their serious and subversive work unhindered by serious opposition, which puts human exceptionalism--the predicate to universal human rights--at extreme peril.
And I am sorry, but it frustrates the heck out of me. I see it so often in my speeches. I make a point of bringing this kind of threat up in almost every presentation, and the audience invariably titters and rolls their eyes. I feel like pounding the podium and telling them to take it seriously!
This isn't parody. Indeed, parody doesn't work anymore because as we saw in the "plants rights" story, they always catch up to us.
And it matters a lot because the very moral and philosophical bases of society are teetering. But people keep insisting that "it can't happen here." but IT--which covers a lot of ground and a lot of issues--is happening here. Now.
So please, if just to reduce my blood pressure, stop laughing. Thank you.
End rant.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 1:22 PM
14 Comments
14 Comments:
Don't worry, we're not laughing at all. It is interesting that people will nod their heads in serious agreement when the "tipping point" is talked about re: climate change, but then roll their eyes when the point is made about civilization itself.
As if civilizations have never changed or failed. We have many modern examples of countries where it was believed a stable and exceptional society could never fall prey to chaos...right before it in fact fell prey to chaos.
If human life is not inherently special and deserving of dignity simply for being human, then there is nothing to stop the powerful from determining that a particular type of person has no right to live. It is already happening and some have already been labeled as unwanted or spares and been denied the right to be born. Others are labeled vegetables and denied the right to continue living.
Your writings make this crystal clear and it is deeply troubling that so many prefer to ignore the logical conclusion to a utilitarian worldview. How long until we ourselves are labeled?
Thank you Jeremy. You get it. If the moral worth of any human is deemed a matter of subjective evaluation rather than an objective given, the powerful determine which criteria matter and which don't. And they never choose themselves as the disposable.
Animal rights hits at the heart of objective moral worth by reducing human value to that of animals. If we perceive ourselves as merely another animal in the forest, there will be no reason to protect the weak. And it also leads to the anti humanism we see. If the natural world is personalized, how easy to see us as the cause of Gaia's woes.
Animal rightists seem to think that all sentient life will be valued equally as a consequence of their advocacy. In itself, that would cause great human harm and impede human thriving. Moreover, that is not only utopian, it is breathtakingly naive. We still haven't gotten human exceptionalism right yet and now just when we may be getting close, they want to tear it all down "for those who can't speak for themselves."
If we perceive ourselves as merely another animal in the forest, there will be no reason to protect the weak.
You really should speak for yourself. The fear you express is a personal one that you assume we all share. That's naive, arrogant, and simply wrong. Of course we're animals - God's universe makes that abundantly clear. But we are also a specific type of animal called "Human" with the ability to empathize and sympathize with others.
Thankfully, most of us understand that what is true for one of us is true for all. More than just an intellectual exercise, we know how others would feel if some harm was directed at them, and in turn we can also feel their pain. These remarkable twin powers - sympathy and empathy - provide a natural basis for morality.
Now I acknowledge that these abilities vary from individual to individual. Some, like those with Asperger's Syndrome or Autism, have a biological impairment. Others, like the egotist and narcissist, probably have lower than normal sensitivity, and I suspect the virtuous and altruistic have higher than normal sensitivity. What you can't deny, however, is that these natural impulses are part of our genetic code. We have even discovered that our Ape cousins have innate - although limited - concepts of fairness.
Now perhaps, deep down, you are a very self-centered person and the only thing keeping you in check is this particular view of Human Exceptionalism. If so, that's very sad, and I understand why you feel compelled to restrain yourself. Now please do us a favor and acknowledge that many of us are not so disadvantaged, and thus do not need to be subjected to your limitations.
I just found this blog through another site and am very happy to find something both intellectual and logically conservative.(so far as I haven't read all that many of your posts) I completely understand what you are refering to with people shrugging off initial developments (or developments in another country) as 'you can't be serious' or 'that could never happen HERE'. I do informal debate and apologetics and one of the most frustrating things about trying to get liberals to actually debate (instead of just saying 'well that's just one option' or 'you can't decide what's true/right for anyone else') is their seemingly pathalogical dismissal of what they believe 'must be a joke' or, as you say "it can't happen here". Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, and ignoring that Europe has preceeded the US by 5-10 years (at most) in most of what was once nothing more than a joke that couldn't possibly be taken seriously is the perfect set up for those 'jokes' to be played upon the naive majority in the US.
Jespren: Welcome to Secondhand Smoke!
Rich: I never claimed to speak for anyone but myself. That's why it's my blog. But I like conversation. That's why comments are permitted and all are welcome to have their say unless they use foul language, call names, lie, or make threats. I only have had to kick two people off the blog, and I think they were the same person, so I really only kicked one out twice.
As a liberal of the Martin Luther King variety who was teethed on the free speech movements on the campuses of the 1960s, now labeled a conservative because of my view that human life matters and none of us no matter at what stage should be considered a commodity, I believe in open debate.
You can fight to include animals in the community of equals until you are blue in the face, and I will fight against it likewise because I believe it will destroy universal human rights and denigrate humanity's intrinsic value and self perception.
But hey: That's what freedom and the ability to make conscious moral choices are all about. And we are the only species in the known universe to have those capacities. Hence, we are exceptional! And why that ticks some people off is beyond me.
Rich, what are you saying, that anyone who thinks humans are superior and more valuable than apes are self centered? That copout speaks for itself. By the way, the proper putdown is to call people like that "speciesists" or acuse us of "speciesism."
I hate to seem silly, but this is silly stuff. If apes get the rights of personhood or whatever-it would have to be something other than human rights... I bet that's the next thing to go because being human won't matter anymore now that we are giving equal rights to beasts; could we be charged for hate speech if we make derisive comments about apes, ape like behaviors, or if I called an ape a beast? If beasts like apes are given equal rights, or elevated to the level of humans, can it be far off before we could see some sort of relationships developing or being defined? Sounds insane, but this is insane and we've got at least one professor on the record saying relations with animals are okay under certain conditions.
Rich, what are you saying, that anyone who thinks humans are superior and more valuable than apes are self centered
You have misunderstood my comment. What I said was that a person who needs to believe in the kind of Human Exceptionalism advocated on this blog in order to treat people humanely must be a very self centered person.
You see, most people have a basic inclination towards morality because of empathy with, and sympathy for, their fellow Man. That's why the 5-10% of the population who are Atheists are not mass murders and serial killers, or even habitual criminals. Lacking a belief in God they still respect their fellow man because they know, and feel, the truth of the Golden Rule - do unto others as you would have them do unto you..
Then again, Human Exceptionalism is no safeguard against the destruction of human dignity. Do you doubt that the majority of slave owners, and later, the majority of those opposed to Civil Rights, were Christians who also believed in Humanity's uniqueness? Despite their religious background, they could not see why African Americans should be thought of, or treated as equals. (I'm still puzzled by that)
So the danger of impending moral collapse based on Spain's decision is a ridiculous extension of illogical thinking. Human Exceptionalism is simply not the theological nor philosophical basis for human dignity -- the Golden Rule remains true regardless of one's position on HE.
Rich: Name one animal that follows the Golden Rule, which, by the way, comes from religion. Indeed, the GR is an example of human exceptionalism because it is moral thinking of the kind in which only human beings are capable. It posits a duty beyond self not seen in among those immersed in the Darwinian struggle.
Be that as it may, you can keep asserting it but that doesn't make it true: human exceptionalism isn't about religion, nor is this blog. Indeed, the very evils you spoke about were violations of human exceptionalism and its concomitant principle of universal human equality.
You can be religious and disagree with it, e.g. radical Muslims who believe non Muslims are lesser people. You can be atheistic and believe in it, e.g. the civil libertarian Nat Hentoff who is a pro sanctity of human life atheist. But you can't deny human exceptionalism, because if human life doesn't matter intrinsicly because it is human, the bases for universal human rights collapse.
Make no mistake: The GAP is profoundly subversive to human wellbeing and our self perception as a unique rights and duties bearing species. Indeed, it is so intended by its creators.
The golden rule is a logical construct that works with or without religion. Atheists are just one proof.
What I disagree with is your definition of Human Exceptionalism. I contend that humans are exceptional animals, and God's Universe proves this in many ways. You contend that humans are not animals without offering any physical proof to the contrary. Furthermore, you contend that if we accept reality - that humans are animals - morality disappears, based only on fear and a twisted line of thinking.
What you seem incapable of understanding is that humans are still unique even if we are animals. Why? because we have innate abilities that allows us accomplish things beyond that of every other animal.
The golden rule is a logical construct that works with or without religion. Atheists are just one proof.
What I disagree with is your definition of Human Exceptionalism. I contend that humans are exceptional animals, and God's Universe proves this in many ways. You contend that humans are not animals without offering any physical proof to the contrary. Furthermore, you contend that if we accept reality - that humans are animals - morality disappears, based only on fear and a twisted line of thinking.
What you seem incapable of understanding is that humans are still unique even if we are animals. Why? because we have innate abilities that allows us accomplish things beyond that of every other animal.
Rich - I'm confused. I hear you stating that we do not need to be afraid of being just animals because we have the Golden Rule? Where are you going with that?
I'm also annoyed/offended at your rush to ad-hominid attacks. Degrading a persons intellect and calling them 'self-centered' is not conducive to achieving a mutual understanding.
John, you should read what I write.
I never have said humans aren't animals. Of course we are animals biologically. That is beyond dispute. Indeed, many of my arguments have been strikingly similar to the one you made. We don't need God to prove our exceptional NATURES which as far as we know are unique in the universe.
Jeremy, please understand the distinction.
I don't consider WJS's view of Human Exceptionalism (HE) to be self-centered. But I do believe that if the ONLY thing that prevents a given individual from harming another person is belief in HE, then that individual must be self-centered.
Why? Because said individual is not empowered by sympathy or empathy for anyone else - which is very different from "normal" people.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home