An Argument for Human Exceptionalism

[bhsup]

@traitorfish: All I can say is that I didn't mean anything racial at all in my post and just meant to attribute everything in my post to humanity.

@Miles: Where have you ever, anywhere, seen me suggest significant differences between blacks and whites?

 

[Traitorfish]

That we are special, occupying a privileged position as a species, is just a result of us being "we". It's on our best interest to occupy a privilege place if we can, and we can indeed. We are anthropocentric because there's nothing else we can be! We have only our own kind as effective sociable companions. The only possible reference to a human are other humans. And the reason for that is communication, or the lack of it with other species. This is so self-evident that it requires no explanation.

...I disagree? And would like you to explain why you think how the above somehow lends us an objectively exceptional status among all other life-forms?

Lack of communication explains also why our special position did not extend to any other species. If one day we find an autonomous species capable of communicating with us, we'll have to make room for them in our civilization. Until that day we are exceptional because no other species can relate to us effectively, communicate with us.

And no, one gorilla does not a species make. If gorillas ever evolve into animals capable of communicating effectively with humans and defending their interests, they'll be reclassified as an "intelligent species". But the gorillas we know do not.

Well, it's not the only example, nor is it likely that the small number of apes they have taught sign language were all, by coincidence, in possession of a unique capability for language. The ability of animals to make use of language is greater than you seem to realise- perhaps because it would be inconvenient for you to do so.

All I can say is that I didn't mean anything racial at all in my post and just meant to attribute everything in my post to humanity.

Oh, I know; it was Reductio ad absurdum, not an accusation.

 

[Miles Teg]

@Miles: Where have you ever, anywhere, seen me suggest significant differences between blacks and whites?

Hrrm, I think we might be approaching this from the wrong angle. You believe that the best argument for human exceptionalism is religiously based. With that banned, you turned to a simple "might makes right" paradigm. I don't think that's really how you see the world, but it seems to be your fall back position. I'm not arguing that you're a racist, I'm arguing that a "might makes right" paradigm is invalid, in part because it can be used to justify racism.

 

[Ajidica]

Well, you don't know I deny macroevolution?

That isn't basic terminology. You know what Macroevolution is.

Other than that, don't see what the contradiction is. In my opinion (Sorry Traitofish for bending your rule), Humans were not created to be animals, but to take care of the animals and have dominion over the Earth, and ultimately to get closer to God.

As long as you believe humans were 'created' for a task, nothing we can say will change your mind and I don't want to derail the thread.

 

[innonimatu]

...I disagree? And would like you to explain why you think how the above somehow lends us an objectively exceptional status among all other life-forms?

There seems to be a communication problem here. Either that or you are deliberately refusing to understand what I say - which is simple enough.
Define "exceptional".

Well, it's not the only example, nor is it likely that the small number of apes they have taught sign language were all, by coincidence, in possession of a unique capability for language. The ability of animals to make use of language is greater than you seem to realise- perhaps because it would be inconvenient for you to do so.

Sure they can communicate, for simple enough forms of communication. Sure we humans can train animals or figure out a few signs they give us. And you have your gorilla example. But unless you have evidence of an entire species using an ability to communicate with humans and discuss civilization issues, what I stated stands. We, as humans, are alone in our culture, animals just cannot join our discussions. That is what prevents any other known animal species from being accorded, by us, an equal place.

 

[GhostWriter16]

That isn't basic terminology. You know what Macroevolution is.


As long as you believe humans were 'created' for a task, nothing we can say will change your mind and I don't want to derail the thread.

Well, that's why I am trying to keep the religious argument out of it.

But I simply felt the need to comment that humans, in my opinion, aren't animals.

I wanted to make clear that not everyone agreed with your opinion. I don't claim my side of it can be proven.

 

[Traitorfish]

There seems to be a communication problem here. Either that or you are deliberately refusing to understand what I say - which is simple enough.
Define "exceptional".

"Exceptional", in this sense, means something which is objectively removed from others of it's sort, in this case, humans from other life-forms. It is the notion that humans are "above" other life-forms, and so liberated from the burden of moral responsibility towards them.

Sure they can communicate, for simple enough forms of communication. Sure we humans can train animals or figure out a few signs they give us. And you have your gorilla example. But unless you have evidence of an entire species using an ability to communicate with humans and discuss civilization issues, what I stated stands. We, as humans, are alone in our culture, animals just cannot join our discussions. That is what prevents any other known animal species from being accorded, by us, an equal place.

Can children "discuss civilised issues"? Can the severely developmentally disabled? I think that your boundaries are tighter than you intend.

Also, that merely explains why an exceptionalist attitude develops, it does not act as a defence of it.

 

[bhsup]

It is the notion that humans are "above" other life-forms, and so liberated from the burden of moral responsibility towards them.

I am curious why you think the first leads to the second.

 

[Traitorfish]

I am curious why you think the first leads to the second.

A fair point; I am probably over-generalising.

 

[innonimatu]

"Exceptional", in this sense, means something which is objectively removed from others of it's sort, in this case, humans from other life-forms. It is the notion that humans are "above" other life-forms, and so liberated from the burden of moral responsibility towards them.

Moral responsibility can only be shared with other members of the same community. Morals involve both duties and obligations which must be agreed upon, and have no meaning outside a community. It can be an objective one, of human beings, or an imagined one involving ancestors or gods, but they must always be conceived of as a community. Even when groups of humans "respect" specific animals, they do so not out of moral obligations or negotiation with those animals, but out of a negotiation and understanding among the humans who compose the community. Each individual is morally responsible towards the community of humans which made the rules, not towards the animal which is protected by the rules.

As for being above other life forms... those others which cannot communicate with humans are free to contest mastery of the planet from humans. They are contesting it, from bacteria to large carnivores. And in this humans look out for their own interests, as they should.

Can children "discuss civilised issues"? Can the severely developmentally disabled? I think that your boundaries are tighter than you intend.

You started this discussion asking what made humans, as a species, special. I've shown you what makes humans, as a species, different, and why they can only relate with other humans. Now you're trying to invoke examples of individuals within a species, be it one gorilla or special cases of human children or idiots, as alleged exceptions. You've had your goal with this thread frustrated (which, as far as I could see, consisted on making people believe that humans should not treat other animals differently) and refuse to admit it.

These individuals are still part of a larger species, and all I said about species and the insurmountable barrier of communication which puts those apart stands. These individuals are classified together with their species for most purposes, for obvious reasons (same species!). But I do remind you that we don't let children vote on political issues , or let idiots do pretty much anything unsupervised and do not take them seriously. You're just adding to the strength of my argument that lack of communication is the barrier making humans exceptional.

Also, that merely explains why an exceptionalist attitude develops, it does not act as a defence of it.

Facts of nature need no excuse. Humans are a different species, and cannot communicate and negotiate with others. Things are as they are.
Or do you think that gays, for example, should make up excuses for what they are?

 

[Traitorfish]

Moral responsibility can only be shared with other members of the same community.

And this is where we disagree. The rest, I think, is details.

But, nice to know the Vikings were totally moral in their pillaging, eh?

You started this discussion asking what made humans, as a species, special. I've shown you what makes humans, as a species, different, and why they can only relate with other humans. Now you're trying to invoke examples of individuals within a species, be it one gorilla or special cases of human children or idiots, as alleged exceptions. You've had your goal with this thread frustrated (which, as far as I could see, consisted on making people believe that humans should not treat other animals differently) and refuse to admit it.

Point: Not all humans have a capacity for language; it is not universal, and so not essential.
Point: Not all animals lack a capacity for language; it is not universal, and so not essential.

The above seem to be of some relevance.

Facts of nature need no excuse. Humans are a different species, and cannot communicate and negotiate with others. Things are as they are.

Appeals to Nature are a logical fallacy.

Or do you think that gays, for example, should make up excuses for what they are?

And red herrings are just silly.

 

[Perfection]

"Exceptional", in this sense, means something which is objectively removed from others of it's sort, in this case, humans from other life-forms. It is the notion that humans are "above" other life-forms, and so liberated from the burden of moral responsibility towards them.

What about the reverse "Exceptional" notion that you appear to possess?

That notion being that other life-forms are "below" humans, and so liberated from the burden of moral responsibility towards us.

 

[Traitorfish]

What about the reverse "Exceptional" notion that you appear to possess?

That notion being that other life-forms are "below" humans, and so liberated from the burden of moral responsibility towards us.

I recognise that some creatures- human or otherwise- are lacking in a capability for moral judgement, rather than "liberating" them from the burden of it. I would've thought that this was simply realism.

 

[Perfection]

I recognise that some creatures- human or otherwise- are lacking in a capability for moral judgement, rather than "liberating" them from the burden of it. I would've thought that this was simply realism.

It's not surprising, but it does show a very real form of humans being of a very important different character when discussing moral affairs.

I would say that these sorts of differences can be the basis for extending humans different rights. It's this sort of possession of "free will" that gives us our moral capabilities, also gives us certain rights such as autonomy. It would be wrong to force a person into a certain line of work, but I don't think it would be wrong to force a dog to become a service animal.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's not surprising, but it does show a very real form of humans being of a very important different character when discussing moral affairs.

I would say that these sorts of differences can be the basis for extending humans different rights. It's this sort of possession of "free will" that gives us our moral capabilities, also gives us certain rights such as autonomy. It would be wrong to force a person into a certain line of work, but I don't think it would be wrong to force a dog to become a service animal.

A fair point, and, for the most part, I agree. However, I would suggest that this bears more relation to the intelligence shown by any given individual, rather than by an essentialist, species-based measure; for example, that certain restrictions of the liberty of children, the developmentally impaired, etc. are permissible, while certain non-human creatures- chimpanzees, dolphins, etc.- may be deserving of certain base rights and liberties (that being a discussion in itself). Drawing up strict "Awesome/Not Awesome" lines based on something as flimsy as biological species just doesn't sit well with me.

 

[Souron]

Moral responsibility can only be shared with other members of the same community. Morals involve both duties and obligations which must be agreed upon, and have no meaning outside a community. It can be an objective one, of human beings, or an imagined one involving ancestors or gods, but they must always be conceived of as a community. Even when groups of humans "respect" specific animals, they do so not out of moral obligations or negotiation with those animals, but out of a negotiation and understanding among the humans who compose the community. Each individual is morally responsible towards the community of humans which made the rules, not towards the animal which is protected by the rules.

As for being above other life forms... those others which cannot communicate with humans are free to contest mastery of the planet from humans. They are contesting it, from bacteria to large carnivores. And in this humans look out for their own interests, as they should.

This arguement effectively denies the idea of human rights. Human rights are, if real, universally applicable to all humans, regardless of community participation. So if someone is being oppressed in iraq, iran, or any foreign nation, they grant moral authority to intercede in such cases even though the local community has had no part in defining or agreeing to those rights.

It also paints morality as community relative, which is also not a widely held belief.

You started this discussion asking what made humans, as a species, special. I've shown you what makes humans, as a species, different, and why they can only relate with other humans. Now you're trying to invoke examples of individuals within a species, be it one gorilla or special cases of human children or idiots, as alleged exceptions. You've had your goal with this thread frustrated (which, as far as I could see, consisted on making people believe that humans should not treat other animals differently) and refuse to admit it.

These individuals are still part of a larger species, and all I said about species and the insurmountable barrier of communication which puts those apart stands. These individuals are classified together with their species for most purposes, for obvious reasons (same species!). But I do remind you that we don't let children vote on political issues , or let idiots do pretty much anything unsupervised and do not take them seriously. You're just adding to the strength of my argument that lack of communication is the barrier making humans exceptional.

If one typical gorilla is made to speak, then likely any gorilla can be made to speak. Teaching a single gorilla does prove the intellectual capability of the species.

 

[carlosMM]

The issue is the ability to communicate. That, and only that. Animals may very well be capable of communicating among their own species, but no species can effectively communicate with humans. They cannot negotiate with humans. Therefore they will not, now or ever, be on an equal footing with humans.

Ever talked to a grey parrot who has command of English? I had the joy.... and he cheated me out of a cookie.


Oops!


As for your claim that animals can learn "a few signs" - the parrot I talked to knew more words and had better grammar than an average 3 year old.

Humans are only relatively exceptional, not absolutely.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Why limit communication to speech?

 

[Arakhor]

I doubt that said grey parrot actually knew what he was saying. It was hardly a proper conversation, was it?

 

[Perfection]

Why is it ethical for mentally superior species to eat mentally inferior species? I don't get the moral reasoning behind that. I wouldn't want to be eaten by an alien even if he was a jillion times smarter than me.

Well, note how I said potential, so I am only saying these are plausible. They are not meant as complete justifications.

Now, I presume your objection was more toward my second argument, correct?

I guess it would be based on the presumption that a sufficiently intelligent being (the example being good) might have reasons for things based on good beyond our comprehension ability. For instance, if God decides that you are to be eaten, perhaps that is part of some greater good (maybe the cosmos is more "beautiful" under that circumstance), that we cannot understand.