An Argument for Human Exceptionalism

[innonimatu]

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?

According to their moral values, yes, they were. Or mostly they did, sometimes they got condemned by their own people.

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.

Universal human rights in a politically fragmented world are a failed idea. And the world as it stands today provides ample proof of that.

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

I also do not want to turn this thread into one about moral relativism, but I do think that morals arise within a community and therefore are "relative". Nothing in this belief inherently prevents humans from eventually forming a single community and ending such "relativism", but we've not yet reached that point.

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.

Given a large enough universe you can claim exceptions to just about everything. You're trying to weasel out of admitting defeat on this point, but your intention is clear.

Appeals to Nature are a logical fallacy.

Facts are the only verifiable truth available to us all. I pointed out facts and you have no answer to that. You remind me of that guy in Monty Python's Life of Brian who wanted the right to have babies...

And red herrings are just silly.

Also trying to weasel out of admitting that you hold morally contradictory positions, are you?


Oh, and about the whole "are humans superior" thing: the "pro-animal rights" crown want humans to grant rights to animals, is that correct?

 

[MobBoss]

"Exceptional" in the sense of being objectively and fundamentally distinct from all other life-forms, not in simply being unique.

Call me silly, but I tend to find humans fundamentally distinct from all other life on the planet.

If your looking for something other than intelligence to make that distinction, I would then probably have to say its mode of locomotion. We are quite distinct in our bipedal gait, even from chimps and apes as they primarily knuckle-walk while we do not. That and brain mass are probably our two biggest distinctions that I can think of at the moment. I am sure there are a few more.

White Europeans developed technology far in advance of what any other culture achieved independently. This could be, as it historically was, used as "evidence" for the superiority of Europeans. That, to me, suggests a certain flaw in the presentation of such an argument without appropriate elaboration.

Are you saying other cultures didnt develop tech either? What tech are you referring to?

 

[warpus]

I totally disagree with that. Since we humans are the highest life form, it is our duty to be the ones taking care of those who are weaker than us. We should be the ones looking after the planet, since animals have no thought other than what is best for them, we are the one that have a moral guidance that means we can do great things or we can do terrible things.

I somewhat agree.. but the thing is that we are doing none of those things. We are a species of mass consumerism, waste, and pollution. It isn't very good for the planet.

 

[Traitorfish]

According to their moral values, yes, they were. Or mostly they did, sometimes they got condemned by their own people.

So anything is acceptable as long as you sincerely insist that it is? That seems like an ethical code which is open to some abuse.

Oh, and about the whole "are humans superior" thing: the "pro-animal rights" crown want humans to grant rights to animals, is that correct?

Yes and no, depending on what you mean. "Rights" and "animals" are both very broad categories.

Call me silly, but I tend to find humans fundamentally distinct from all other life on the planet.

If your looking for something other than intelligence to make that distinction, I would then probably have to say its mode of locomotion. We are quite distinct in our bipedal gait, even from chimps and apes as they primarily knuckle-walk while we do not. That and brain mass are probably our two biggest distinctions that I can think of at the moment. I am sure there are a few more.

Those are certainly unique characteristics of the genus Homo, yes, but it doesn't really answer my question as to why humans are possessing of an innately higher status than all other life-forms, or why our understood moral duties to each other and to animals are so distinct.

What I am asking is, in essence, why humans are not considered to be animals? What sets us apart on such a fundamental level as is, it seems, so widely assumed?

Are you saying other cultures didnt develop tech either? What tech are you referring to?

Modern firearms, specifically, as you referenced them as your example, but I believe that other arguments have been put forth mentioning skyscrapers and space shuttles, among other things.

 

[warpus]

What I am asking is, in essence, why humans are not considered to be animals?

That's just in every day speech though. When I point at something and say: "Hey, look at that animal!", my friends are going to look in the direction I'm pointing at and look for a non-human mammal, reptile, or bird.. or some sort of vertebrate at least. They def. would not be looking for a fly, or an ant, and maybe not even a snail. There must be a good linguistic explanation of why the colloquial definition of "animal" is assumed to mean "non-human vertebrate"...

but.. humans *are* animals, biologically speaking.

If I say "Hey, look at that animal!" you can assume I'm not including humans or flies, but if you ask me: "Are humans animals", I will say yes. Does that make sense?

 

[Traitorfish]

That's just in every day speech though. When I point at something and say: "Hey, look at that animal!", my friends are going to look in the direction I'm pointing at and look for a non-human mammal, reptile, or bird.. or some sort of vertebrate at least. They def. would not be looking for a fly, or an ant, and maybe not even a snail. There must be a good linguistic explanation of why the colloquial definition of "animal" is assumed to mean "non-human vertebrate"...

but.. humans *are* animals, biologically speaking.

If I say "Hey, look at that animal!" you can assume I'm not including humans or flies, but if you ask me: "Are humans animals", I will say yes. Does that make sense?

I think it goes deeper than that. Perhaps the human/animal dichotomy isn't the best way to explain it- although some people here have explicitly said that "humans are not animals"- but it seems to derive from an assumption of exceptionalism-as-default; that "humans" are, by some innate equality, something set apart from the rest of Animalia.

 

[MobBoss]

What I am asking is, in essence, why humans are not considered to be animals? What sets us apart on such a fundamental level as is, it seems, so widely assumed?

While humans are indeed animals, animals rely more on instinct while humans rely on their own will, which can override their own instinctual drives.

For example, a human can intentionally go on a hunger strike and literally starve themselves to death. An animal wont.

 

[Traitorfish]

While humans are indeed animals, animals rely more on instinct while humans rely on their own will, which can override their own instinctual drives.

For example, a human can intentionally go on a hunger strike and literally starve themselves to death. An animal wont.

This is certainly an interesting basis for an argument. I suppose the next step is to establish the extent to which this can be considered an essential distinction- can all humans over-ride instinct? Are all animals unable to?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Etymologically speaking, the claim that humans are not animals is equivalent to saying that humans do not have souls. Animal literally means "thing with a soul."




I recall reading that there are animals who suffer depression, especially upon the death of a mate, and who refuse to eat as a result.

 

[Perfection]

Etymologically speaking, the claim that humans are not animals is equivalent to saying that humans do not have souls. Animal literally means "thing with a soul."

It's a good thing noone gives a crap about etymology

 

[Seon]

Etymologically speaking, the claim that humans are not animals is equivalent to saying that humans do not have souls. Animal literally means "thing with a soul."




I recall reading that there are animals who suffer depression, especially upon the death of a mate, and who refuse to eat as a result.

I have also heard that elephants get drunk off of eating rotting fruits.

 

[Souron]

According to their moral values, yes, they were. Or mostly they did, sometimes they got condemned by their own people.



Universal human rights in a politically fragmented world are a failed idea. And the world as it stands today provides ample proof of that.



I also do not want to turn this thread into one about moral relativism, but I do think that morals arise within a community and therefore are "relative". Nothing in this belief inherently prevents humans from eventually forming a single community and ending such "relativism", but we've not yet reached that point.



Given a large enough universe you can claim exceptions to just about everything. You're trying to weasel out of admitting defeat on this point, but your intention is clear.



Facts are the only verifiable truth available to us all. I pointed out facts and you have no answer to that. You remind me of that guy in Monty Python's Life of Brian who wanted the right to have babies...



Also trying to weasel out of admitting that you hold morally contradictory positions, are you?


Oh, and about the whole "are humans superior" thing: the "pro-animal rights" crown want humans to grant rights to animals, is that correct?

Most of those quotes you attribute to me are from Traitorfish.

 

[Theige]

I have also heard that elephants get drunk off of eating rotting fruits.

They get drunk by breaking into liquor stores and drinking the good stuff.

 

[Souron]

While humans are indeed animals, animals rely more on instinct while humans rely on their own will, which can override their own instinctual drives.

For example, a human can intentionally go on a hunger strike and literally starve themselves to death. An animal wont.

An animal can be trained though. A wild dog may instinctively bark at threats, but a trained dog will override that instinct.

 

[BasketCase]

In recent threads, it is apparent that a lot of poster adhere, knowingly or otherwise, to Human Exceptionalism, which is to say a belief that human beings, for one reason or another, occupy a special, privileged position in the world which other life forms do not.

Has any other species on Earth built a thousand-foot skyscraper? Written a poem? Discovered planets outside our solar system? Deduced that there might be such a thing as planets outside our solar system?

Seems pretty exceptional to me.

 

[carlosMM]

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

Read up on language training for parrots in
Pepperberg, I.M. "The Alex studies".
http://books.google.de/books?id=uA9...&resnum=1&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.amazon.com/Alex-Studies-Cognitive-Communicative-Abilities/dp/067400051X

Until some other animal can design, construct, and then implement a firearm...yeah, its pretty absolute.

it seems you are not familiar with the terms "relative" and "absolute".

http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com/dictionary/relative
http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com/dictionary/absolute

Animals can and do create weapons. Thus, your example shows that the difference is relative - their weapons are much less complex, but they are weapons, tools created for the same purpose. As pointed out by Traitorfish, your bar "firearm" is arbitrary.

Has any other species on Earth built a thousand-foot skyscraper? Written a poem? Discovered planets outside our solar system? Deduced that there might be such a thing as planets outside our solar system?

Seems pretty exceptional to me.

as for MobBoss.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'd give the "written a poem". Creating art merely for aesthetic purposes is a unique human trait isn't it?

 

[carlosMM]

I'd give the "written a poem". Creating art merely for aesthetic purposes is a unique human trait isn't it?

is it?

various great apes have shown behavior awfully close to art. The problem, as usually with animals, is that positive proof is difficult. Take, for example, classic operant conditioning tests on great apes and parrots - they will fare horribly badly, usually, because they are bored to hell, and in many cases too smart for the tests (they came up with too many possibilities, so that trial and error was a failure. Imagine someone points one finger at you, does nothing else - could mean any number of things, and if you do not guess right on the first three attempts you'll give up in frustration). So beyond anectodal evidence it is really hard to say either yes or no - but anecdotal evidence is strongly in favor of some animals preferring certain color schemes and painting for fun, etc.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

is it?

I dunno, is it?

various great apes have shown behavior awfully close to art. The problem, as usually with animals, is that positive proof is difficult. Take, for example, classic operant conditioning tests on great apes and parrots - they will fare horribly badly, usually, because they are bored to hell, and in many cases too smart for the tests (they came up with too many possibilities, so that trial and error was a failure. Imagine someone points one finger at you, does nothing else - could mean any number of things, and if you do not guess right on the first three attempts you'll give up in frustration). So beyond anectodal evidence it is really hard to say either yes or no - but anecdotal evidence is strongly in favor of some animals preferring certain color schemes and painting for fun, etc.

So ... "is it?" remains to be seen.

Alright, how about humans are unique in feeling smug about art they created? Yeah, I know, impossible to test on animals.

 

[Ayatollah So]

if the average member of that species meets that standard, ALL members of that species has rights.

Firstly, that seems like a rather arbitrary measure. Do you have any particular reasoning behind it?

If he doesn't, I do: it prevents all sorts of abuses, and is the simplest and most efficient rule capable of doing so. When a particular organism doesn't reach its species-specific potential, that's very often the result of abuse or neglect. Allowing further abuse to follow because of this is morally insane.

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

I thought he was rebelling against the demand for "objectivity" in your sense. He's just finished explaining that we can only justify things to those with whom we can communicate. Ergo, if communication is impossible, justification is out of the question.