An Argument for Human Exceptionalism

[Ayatollah So]

Why limit communication to speech?

I'd extend it to language, of which sign language is a part of, of course.

But it's communication, not specifically linguistic communication, which is morally important. Communication can establish intentions of mutual respect, of following rules, and so on for other morally important things, without necessarily being linguistic communication.

 

[MobBoss]

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

Hmmm. Well, you havent changed much Carlos.

And I really dont care about your definitions, since you seem to consider a pointy stick 'relative' as a 'weapon' to a revolver. I my opinion, its not.

Animals can and do create weapons.

Examples, then please. Note your plural, and mine. And are you able to provide me anything more sophisticated than a pointy stick?

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.

Same purpose? Do tool wielding animals hunt for sport? Catch and release? Do they collect weapons just to collect them because they think they are cool?

/meh.

 

[warpus]

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.

Well, if we were dolphins, and the only intelligent enough species to have cities, the internet, civilization, etc., then we'd think we're special too.

Evolution has given us amazing pattern recognition machines which allow us to reason. That's what sets us apart from the other animals - our brains have more layers than any other animals'. I'm no brainologist but our brains are far more complex than any other species.

 

[Bill3000]

But it's communication, not specifically linguistic communication, which is morally important. Communication can establish intentions of mutual respect, of following rules, and so on for other morally important things, without necessarily being linguistic communication.

Certainly not as generic as that - even bacteria communicate. I think you're drastically understating the value of true language.

 

[Traitorfish]

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.

Yet again, "exceptional" doesn't simply mean "unusual" or "special", but something which is objectively removed from a greater set, in this case, humans from the rest of the animal kingdom. That some of our number are responsible for certain achievements does not necessarily suggest that; one would have to look at the creatures behind these achievements to establish such an exception, not merely their creations.

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.

But why should we care about such abuses? If there's no moral compulsion to care for others beyond that which is convenient to us, why uphold a social contract that demands we do? And what of those that will never reach their "species-specific potential", such as the developmentally challenged?

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.

Which leaves me kicking a blind Spaniard to do death because I can't communicate with him, and so have no moral duty to him, so... Yeah, that one might need a bit of elaboration.

Well, if we were dolphins, and the only intelligent enough species to have cities, the internet, civilization, etc., then we'd think we're special too.

Evolution has given us amazing pattern recognition machines which allow us to reason. That's what sets us apart from the other animals - our brains have more layers than any other animals'. I'm no brainologist but our brains are far more complex than any other species.

That goes without saying, of course- even a relatively dim human is far more intelligent than any non-human animal. All I question is the notion that we are therefore objectively excepted from the rest of the animal kingdom, rather than merely being its most intelligent member.

 

[warpus]

That goes without saying, of course- even a relatively dim human is far more intelligent than any non-human animal. All I question is the notion that we are therefore objectively excepted from the rest of the animal kingdom, rather than merely being its most intelligent member.

I don't think anybody sane is going to refute that we are the most intelligent animal.. right?

edit: IMO our "exceptionalism" is just a byproduct of the above fact.. and while there might be some crazy religious types who claim that humans are not animals biologically speaking, we can probably ignore them

 

[carlosMM]

I dunno, is it?
So ... "is it?" remains to be seen.

exactly

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

Schadenfreude is widespread among animals. From there any smug feeling is not too far a step

 

[carlosMM]

Hmmm. Well, you havent changed much Carlos.

And I really dont care about your definitions, since you seem to consider a pointy stick 'relative' as a 'weapon' to a revolver. I my opinion, its not.

well, if you choose not to use the terms I introduced (relative and absolute) in the definitions I used and that are widely used (see OALD links), it is entirely appropriate to simply dismiss your further posts as cantankerous. Seems you never learn.

 

[innonimatu]

Which leaves me kicking a blind Spaniard to do death because I can't communicate with him, and so have no moral duty to him, so... Yeah, that one might need a bit of elaboration.

Damn it, I must cease following this tread, I just can't resist answering. Will you stop trying to deny the communication problem with silly anecdotes? Humans cannot in any usable future negotiate morals with animals, regardless of the amount of effort they may put into it. You can communicate with a "blind Spaniard", if you care to put an effort into it. It's not the same thing!

 

[MobBoss]

well, if you choose not to use the terms I introduced (relative and absolute) in the definitions I used and that are widely used (see OALD links), it is entirely appropriate to simply dismiss your further posts as cantankerous. Seems you never learn.

/shrug. There wasnt any need for you to link definitions. Its basically being a grammer-nazi, and we dont need that around here. So, of course I am being cantankerous...I generally am when people do that sort of thing.

Would you define my attitude as either relative or absolute in this case?

I also note that you utterly failed to give examples of those oh-so-many animals that use tools and even use some as weapons; but would rather make me the topic instead.

Ah well.

 

[galdre]

wait... are we saying humans are superior because we use weapons?

 

[MobBoss]

wait... are we saying humans are superior because we use weapons?

Not by the 'use of' but rather by 'the effectiveness of'....

If Chimps designed a human death ray and commenced to wiping us out, wouldnt they then be superior?

Be hard to argue not.

 

[galdre]

Not by the 'use of' but rather by 'the effectiveness of'....

If Chimps designed a human death ray and commenced to wiping us out, wouldnt they then be superior?

Be hard to argue not.

guess that depends on how we define superior

 

[Souron]

Not by the 'use of' but rather by 'the effectiveness of'....

If Chimps designed a human death ray and commenced to wiping us out, wouldnt they then be superior?

Be hard to argue not.

Might wouldn't make chimps superior. The bubonic plague was pretty effective at wiping a lot of people out, but it is surely inferior to most animals. There are less qualms about slicing up a live bacterium, then a live cat.

 

[MobBoss]

Might wouldn't make chimps superior. The bubonic plague was pretty effective at wiping a lot of people out, but it is surely inferior to most animals. There are less qualms about slicing up a live bacterium, then a live cat.

As the man says, it all depends on how you define superior.

 

[Souron]

As the man says, it all depends on how you define superior.

The relevant spectrum is the one that allows us to make judgments on what freedoms should be afforded. That's what human exceptionalism is about. Why should the lowest of humans be afforded the right to life, liberty, and freedom from torture, but not the highest of animals?

Our might is not the reason, because it is immoral to assert your will on another just because you are stronger.

 

[MobBoss]

The relevant spectrum is the one that allows us to make judgments on what freedoms should be afforded. That's what human exceptionalism is about. Why should the lowest of humans be afforded the right to life, liberty, and freedom from torture, but not the highest of animals?

Heh, because even the lowest of humans can revolt, arm themselves and kick your ass.

Even animals of the highest order arent able to do that.

Our might is not the reason, because it is immoral to assert your will on another just because you are stronger.

You may think it immoral, but its still very much reality....and has been for the entire history of the Human race.

 

[Souron]

Heh, because even the lowest of humans can revolt, arm themselves and kick your ass.

Even animals of the highest order arent able to do that.

Are you really arguing that the only reason oppression is bad only because of the the threat of revolt? Is it really ok for a man to keep a chained up slave, as long as I use really good chains?

You may think it immoral, but its still very much reality....and has been for the entire history of the Human race.

That doesn't make it moral. But most people would argue that it is moral to step on an ant. If it is moral for me to step on an ant it is surely not because we are mightier than ants.

 

[MobBoss]

Are you really arguing that the only reason oppression is bad only because of the the threat of revolt?

Nope and in fact, I am in favor of animal cruelty laws.

Is it really ok for a man to keep a chained up slave, as long as I use really good chains?

Wow, not sure how you got this in a thread about this topic.

Unless your a PETA member that equates animals with slaves or something. Is that what you think?

That doesn't make it moral. But most people would argue that it is moral to step on an ant. If it is moral for me to step on an ant it is surely not because we are mightier than ants.

If we werent mightier than the ant, we wouldnt be stepping on it.

 

[Traitorfish]

Damn it, I must cease following this tread, I just can't resist answering. Will you stop trying to deny the communication problem with silly anecdotes? Humans cannot in any usable future negotiate morals with animals, regardless of the amount of effort they may put into it. You can communicate with a "blind Spaniard", if you care to put an effort into it. It's not the same thing!

Are you suggesting that it is impossible to engage in meaningful communication with all animals? Or simply that we cannot communicate moral issues? Because the latter isn't possible with all humans, either.