An Argument for Human Exceptionalism

[GhostWriter16]

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

Well, you don't know I deny macroevolution?

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.

I would say the biggest thing that sets us apart is our soul, thus by that logic we AREN'T animals at all. God created us as a completely different lifeform.

But this isn't supposed to be a religious argument. I just felt it needed to explain my position.

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

Well, that's true, but I was saying those rights would be the same.

Animals do, IMO, have rights, they just aren't the same in either importance or number. When I say "Human Rights" I mean the rights currently given to humans. I'm pretty sure EVERYONE agrees such a classification exists. Unless you support capital punishment or a life sentence for killing a cow. However painful the method, no matter how long it was tortured for, even if it was for weeks, I wouldn't support life imprisonment for it. Large punishment yes, but not more than manslaughter (Accidental taking of human life) because I believe that humans are so much more important than animals its not even close.

 

[Souron]

Elaborating on my position that humans are exceptional because of their capabilities in symbolic thought:

- Establish the relationship between humanity and personhood; could a hypothetical a AI, alien or uplifted animal be a person? Yes
- Define the limits of "humanity" in terms of species; does Homo neanderthalis count? Homo erectus? Australopithecus africanus? I am not a student of anthropology, but I'd say humanity coincides roughly with the development of ceremonial burial. Wiki says that this is present in homo sapiens sapiens and possibly neanderthals only.
Define the limits of humanity within the species; are embryos human? Are the seriously developmentally challenged. Embryos are not sapient. Presumably developmental challenges or injury could cause the lack of the mental capabilities too. But it's tricky territory, so it's best to tread carefully, and judge leniently.

 

[Miles Teg]

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.

It would be contradictory to say that "Since humans are X times smarter than animals, we can eat animals" while saying that "Aliens can't eat humans, even though they are X times smarter than humans."

It would not be contradictory to say "Humans can eat animals because animals are less intelligent than benchmark Y" while also saying "Aliens can't eat humans, even though aliens are X times smarter than humans, because humans meet benchmark Y".

 

[GhostWriter16]

I strangely agree with Miles Teg, sort of.

I also agree with Perfection on the matter. God (At least according to Perfection, assuming he exists) has the right to do whatever he wants since he created us (Or the process that created us) out of nothing.

But other than the unique example that is God, who only has to play by his own rules, I would agree. There would have to be a benchmark somewhere, and anyone who exceeds that has "Human rights."

I would personally draw the line at intelligent speech, with a few rules to it. IMO it should be handled species by species, and if the average member of that species meets that standard, ALL members of that species has rights. For instance, a baby (Already born so we don't have to deal with the abortion argument) cannot speak, but his species can so he has rights. A man who happens to be unable to speak still has rights because his species can. I don't consider it the "Be all end all" but I think its good enough for now.

I'd say any kind of sapience would give your species some rights (Like not to be tortured) but the rights of humans should be afforded only to a SPECIES that can speak.

 

[Traitorfish]

I would personally draw the line at intelligent speech, with a few rules to it. IMO it should be handled species by species, and 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?
Secondly, it doesn't account for potential, which should really be the core of the matter- several apes have been trained to effectively communicate in sign language and through pictograms, but were only able to because they were given access to it, while feral children, who clearly have the potential to learn language, are without it. As such, it is hard to make effective generalisations based on "averages".

 

[bhsup]

From a totally non-religious viewpoint (which therefore takes morality out of the equation and makes this "law of the jungle" territory):

We're the top dogs on the planet. We, alone of all the species on this blue marble, have bent the surface of this planet to our will. If a mountain is in our way, we bring the mountain down. We reshape this world to our will. We have reached such heights of technology that we've gone to our sister body in the sky. Hell, as far as the law of the jungle goes, we've advanced so far that we can blow off that law and help the weakest of us survive and prosper.

In short, by sheer virtue of our commanding this planet to conform to us and our needs, we are the exceptional species around. Sure, a beaver can dam a little stream, but can they build Hoover Dam? Can they tame the mighty Mississippi? Hell no, that's us.

 

[Traitorfish]

Wait, are we talking about humans, or white people? It's hard to tell from your post.

 

[bhsup]

What??

 

[GhostWriter16]

What??

It was satire on Traitorfish's part. He was jokingly accusing you of racism, but he knew you meant humans.

 

[Perfection]

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.

This seems really muddled.

Do you not place dogs on a privileged place above sponges despite them both being animals?

Could not humans, while still being animals, be in a privileged place above all animals?

 

[Miles Teg]

What??

Replace the references in you post to animals and humans with references to Indians and white people. You'll see it.

 

[Traitorfish]

What??

Why point was that argument could just as easily be applied to racial exceptionalism as to human exceptionalism. It measures only achievement, not essence, and- at least until the last few decades- the sorts of achievements listed were (for various, highly complicated reasons), the domain of whites people.

I didn't mean to imply an accusation of racism, though; that was simply poor phrasing on my part.

 

[bhsup]

But we went to the moon for all mankind, not just us honkies

 

[Seon]

But we went to the moon for all mankind, not just us honkies

I don't know, did we go to moon for those darn commies?

 

[Miles Teg]

But we went to the moon for all mankind, not just us honkies

So lump Armstrong in with the vegetarians as misguided fools.

 

[innonimatu]

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.

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.

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.

 

[bhsup]

Yeah, even them How else were we gonna put the moon weapons up there to whack commies with?

But, to seriously answer Traitorfish' query. Even if it has been just whites that did most of the stuff I mentioned, it was white humans, that means humans are capable of these things regardless of race.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I find myself completely agreeing with VRWC here...

 

[Traitorfish]

But, to seriously answer Traitorfish' query. Even if it has been just whites that did most of the stuff I mentioned, it was white humans, that means humans are capable of these things regardless of race.

Which is of course true, but that was not expressed in your post. All you established was a set of achievements that the human race happens to have accomplished, selected on the rather circular basis that humans accomplished them, rather than an objective argument for human exception. One could just as easily draw the line around whites or Germanics or the upper class and declare them to be exceptional, as some have historically done on much the same grounds.

 

[Miles Teg]

But, to seriously answer Traitorfish' query. Even if it has been just whites that did most of the stuff I mentioned, it was white humans, that means humans are capable of these things regardless of race.

Why? We know that your statement (people of all races can do cool things) is true, but the fact that white humans can do something doesn't imply that black humans can do something, if you believe that there are significant differences between blacks and whites.