An Argument for Human Exceptionalism

[Perfection]

The idea that humans are objectively removed from other animals, rather than merely being the smartest of the bunch.

Not to sound repetitive what do you mean by "objectively removed"?

When we talk about exceptions, exceptions are in regards to rules or patterns. What rules or patterns would qualify as interesting to you?

One could hold to it being unethical to kill animals while still holding to the idea that humans are exception to rules that can be applied to all other animals. For instance, it strikes me (and probably you as well) as true that only humans can be held morally responsible for their actions. That seems to me to qualify as something exceptional about humans yet doesn't say that animals are without rights.

 

[asbestos]

Serious question: per the "humans are more intelligent argument", would it be alright for a meta-sapient genius to eat a mentally challenged human with an IQ in the low 60s? Would it be alright for a 195 IQ genetically engineered Gorilla to eat a human?

 

[Perfection]

Serious question: per the "humans are more intelligent argument", would it be alright for a meta-sapient genius to eat a mentally challenged human with an IQ in the low 60s? Would it be alright for a 195 IQ genetically engineered Gorilla to eat a human?

Two potential responses:

1. Humans are more intelligent not only in degree but in absolute capabilities. For instance, humans can perform such feats as metathinking (thinking about thinking), and can think about and express things that do not exist in the world (like flying purple cows), it is for these capabilities we should disallow eating humans while allowing animals being eaten. So it's not simply that humans are more intelligent, but they have a specific sort of intelligence which makes it unethical for anyone to eat them, an intelligence that animals lack.

2. We might accept that a sufficiently intelligent being could be ethically entitled to kill and eat us, but it might be that the examples you gave were false because the magnitude of intelligence difference needed to eat a human is far more than what you have stated. Maybe if God wants to eat us, for mysterious divine reasons, that could be morally acceptable.

 

[innonimatu]

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.

Consider those other intelligent species which human fiction idealized on an equal footing with humans. The idea of meeting another species in an undiscovered continent or, (now that the Earth is explored and the mystery is lost) extraterrestrial intelligent species always depend on they having the ability to communicate with humans. If they don't, they're "the hive" enemy to be destroyed, or "the strangers" like the planet Solaris of those in Fiasco (I highly recommend Stanislaw Lem's science fiction books).
People should read more good science fiction, then they'd discover that "human exceptionalism" has been answered a long time ago.

 

[Traitorfish]

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.

Why is communication so crucial? All that suggests is that we are a distinct species, not that we are exceptional. And what of those animals who can effectively communicate with humans, such as Koko, the gorilla famous for her grasp of American Sign Language?

All you are doing here is reaffirming your anthropocentrism, not making a case for it.

 

[Ajidica]

Still, it is impossible to deny that we are different from the common animal by virtue of our intelligence. If we found another animal that was as intelligent as us with similar mental capacity and ability to the average human, I would consider them just as exceptional as us. It is not the fact that we are special because we are human. We are special because of our traits.

 

[Souron]

I posit that humans are exceptional because of our unique capabilities of symbolic thought.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think it may be worth elaborating on the meaning of the word "exceptional", in this context. It does not merely mean unique within a certain context (that is, the planet Earth), but possessing of some fundamentally special or outstanding status that allows the entity or collective in question to sit on a higher "level", if you will, than other entities or collectives of the same sort. In this case, the notion that, to but it briefly, humans are something other than animals.

 

[Ajidica]

Exceptional as privy to something that separates from all other creatures? No.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Still, it is impossible to deny that we are different from the common animal by virtue of our intelligence. If we found another animal that was as intelligent as us with similar mental capacity and ability to the average human, I would consider them just as exceptional as us. It is not the fact that we are special because we are human. We are special because of our traits.

I would argue that if such an "Animal" existed, it would not be human.

My personal beliefs of man's dominion only applies to the Earth, so IN THEORY there could be something on a different planet as intelligent and with similar traits to us that would have human rights. But it wouldn't be an animal at that point.

An animal is, by definition, a lower form of life, or it isn't an animal.

 

[Ajidica]

Humans are animals.
If there were aliens that were just as smart as us, I would consider them exceptional in the same vein as us, but I wouldn't consider them human.

 

[Arakhor]

If there was such an animal, of course it wouldn't be a human. Being human is a biological distinction only.

 

[Traitorfish]

An animal is, by definition, a lower form of life, or it isn't an animal.

Actually, an "animal" is defined as a life-form that is located within the kingdoms Animalia or Metazoa, and are characterised by, among other things, a fixed body plan and heterotrophic diets. Humans fall as surely into that category as they do into "ape".

 

[GhostWriter16]

Humans are animals.
If there were aliens that were just as smart as us, I would consider them exceptional in the same vein as us, but I wouldn't consider them human.

I don't agree that humans are animals, but let's not debate THAT here. I'll assume you are right for the moment.

Humans may be, in the scientific usage, animals, but not in day to day life. I said those aliens would have HUMAN RIGHTS. Not that they'd be human. But that they would have human rights.

They wouldn't be an "Animal" in the common definition though.

If there was such an animal, of course it wouldn't be a human. Being human is a biological distinction only.

I agree, but they would be a Person, not an animal, at least not in the common sense.

 

[Arakhor]

I agree, but they would be a Person, not an animal, at least not in the common sense.

In the "common" sense, yes, I'd completely agree with you. This is starting to be catching.

 

[Ajidica]

I don't agree that humans are animals, but let's not debate THAT here. I'll assume you are right for the moment.

Then you reject basic biology and classification. I thought we got past the stage where you denied basic scientific laws?

Humans may be, in the scientific usage, animals, but not in day to day life. I said those aliens would have HUMAN RIGHTS. Not that they'd be human. But that they would have human rights.

Why would they have Human Rights? They aren't human. They could have Klingon Rights or Centauri Rights, but not Human Rights.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, if there were other sapient species, then the term would have to change to "sapient rights" or something similar.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't agree that humans are animals, but let's not debate THAT here.

But... That is the debate.

Well, if there were other sapient species...

That's a questionable "if"...

 

[Narz]

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.

You say you "totally disagree" with me but I'm not sure how. I pretty much agree with you though.

Except that "animals have no thought other than what is best for them", I would argue that animals don't have any thought at all & I would also argue that animals do often care for other animals (in terms of symbiotic relationships).

 

[Narz]

Two potential responses:

1. Humans are more intelligent not only in degree but in absolute capabilities. For instance, humans can perform such feats as metathinking (thinking about thinking), and can think about and express things that do not exist in the world (like flying purple cows), it is for these capabilities we should disallow eating humans while allowing animals being eaten. So it's not simply that humans are more intelligent, but they have a specific sort of intelligence which makes it unethical for anyone to eat them, an intelligence that animals lack.

2. We might accept that a sufficiently intelligent being could be ethically entitled to kill and eat us, but it might be that the examples you gave were false because the magnitude of intelligence difference needed to eat a human is far more than what you have stated. Maybe if God wants to eat us, for mysterious divine reasons, that could be morally acceptable.

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.