I am very concerned that too many of us complacently believe that the reigning societal value under which we were raised–the sanctity/equality of human life–continues to control society. But that is no longer true. We are in the midst of an attempted coup de culture that seeks to supplant human exceptionalism with a toxic mix of utilitarianism/hedonism/radical environmentalism-scientism as the sources of our personal values and public policies.
Thus, I take every chance offered to issue the warning. Today, I have a piece up over at the Church Report, in which I assert that rejecting human exceptionalism is to reject human freedom. From “Knocking Human Beings Off the Pedestal of Exceptionalism:”
Society’s belief in the unique moral value and importance of human life is under unprecedented assault. Most people still believe in human exceptionalism and are unaware that powerful social and cultural forces are working diligently to dismantle the sanctity of life ethic as the fundamental value of our social order. But the time has come to pay attention. If human life is knocked off the pedestal, universal human rights will be impossible to sustain.
I get into issues many people don’t dwell upon; bioethics and personhood theory, animal rights “panience,” materialistic Darwinism’s “species differences are irrelevant,” and radical environmentalism’s casting of us as the villains of the planet–all of which we have discussed here at SHS. Then, I close with this warning:
These, and other, attacks on human exceptionalism are profoundly dangerous to human life and liberty. It is our unique moral status in the known universe that gives rise to both universal (human) rights. It is the sanctity of life ethic that compels us to care for the weak, vulnerable, and elderly among us.
Either we all matter equally, simply and merely because we are human—or our value becomes relative, our rights, and indeed, our continued existence—determined by the reigning power structure of the day. After all, if we are merely another animal in the forest—or worse, the planet’s enemies—why should any of us be treated as if we have any special meaning at all?
I’m tellin’ y’all, I know what I am talking about here. Let us hope that forewarned is forearmed.
November 1st, 2009 | 1:26 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by J. Robert Howell, Rubin the Rabbit. Rubin the Rabbit said: Discard Human Exceptionalism and You Discard Universal Human …: I get into issues many people don't dwell.. http://bit.ly/23WJXZ [...]
November 1st, 2009 | 9:46 am
“We are in the midst of an attempted coup de culture that seeks to supplant human exceptionalism with a toxic mix of utilitarianism/hedonism/radical environmentalism-scientism as the sources of our personal values and public policies.”
Oh, come on. You’re sounding hysterical.
November 1st, 2009 | 10:59 am
That’s an inadequate retort History Writer. Read the article and tell me where I am wrong. Indeed, since you advocate suicide on demand as a right of autonomy, the assertion seems clearly true.
November 1st, 2009 | 2:54 pm
It seems that you’re basically saying, “If we don’t keep torturing and needlessly killing animals, humans won’t be special.” If that’s true, then we’re already not special. Our worth as human beings is not lost through kindness to all living things. One never truly becomes great by minimizing others. On the contrary, one who confidently identifies with greatness has no fear of others being elevated.
The rights of the weak are dependent on the observation of duties of the powerful. If we accept a duty to protect the innocent, that can apply to animals and humans alike.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 5:11 pm
No, I am saying that moral value doesn’t come from the ability to feel pain. Whatever duties we have toward animals–and they are considerable–come from human exceptionalism. We are the only species that can be held morally accountable. Animals owe each other and us no duties because they are not moral beings.
November 1st, 2009 | 8:20 pm
Wesley:
Sorry if my reaction offended, but to be frank I haven’t heard so may pejoratives strung together in a single phrase since the “commie/pinko/atheist/…” rhetoric of the 1950s.
But to get back to business: a dog is exceptional, in that its sense of smell is several thousand times more sensitive than yours. The survivability of a cockroach makes it unique and therefore exceptional among all other living things. Your judgment that “moral sense” is what makes homo sapiens exceptional may be correct, but the value of that uniqueness relative to other species’ uniqueness is simply a value judgment. Is there a scientific basis for the valuation of human moral sense as the highest form of uniqueness? No biblical quotations please; no papal encyclicals. Just the scientifically ascertainable facts. How have you determined that animals are so lacking in moral sense such that we humans should have power of life and death over them? Does any lack of moral sense at all, no matter how slight, render a creature “unexceptional”? Are you asserting that humans are the only primates with any moral sense at all, or is there some quantum measurement that differentiates them from, say, gorillas or bonobos?
Now, if you argue that our moral sense makes us exceptional, which implies that the quality of humanity is, in fact, based on the possession of that attribute, does it not follow that a person lacking moral sense lacks exceptionality, and therefore renders him- or herself something less than. Can you explain why you believe Terri Schiavo had exceptionality when it is scientifically clear that her condition rendered her devoid of moral sense? Would you consider an anacephalic infant to be endowed with moral sense absent a functioning brain and any capacity to discern?
You seem to be saying that there’s more to life than simply being alive — but then I’ve used the same phrase to argue in favor of assisted suicide. So where do you stand? Please tell us about moral sense, especially your view of its criteria and measurement.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
November 1st, 2009 at 9:19 pm
History Writer: We’ve been through this repeatedly. The dog’s sense of smell, the hawk’s eyesight, do not have any moral implications. You said it was a value judgment. Bingo. We are the only species that make such value judgments. We are steeped in moral reasoning. The person lacking moral sense would be a damaged human. The point is that it is in our NATURES and only our natures. Same with our unique rationality, etc.
But you answer a question: How do we justify universal human rights if being human is itself morally irrelevant?
November 2nd, 2009 | 9:07 am
“The point is that [moral sense] is in our NATURES and only our natures.”
Alas, Wesley, you’re writing an obit for empiricism. Are you prepared to prove your exclusivity proposition with respect to other primates? Or are we simply talking mysticism, revelation and faith? If the latter, then my guess is as good as yours.
November 2nd, 2009 | 12:17 pm
What this all comes down to is the basic AR tenet that favoring our own species over any other is speciesism, and is evil.
That is the fundamental flaw of the AR ideology. The truth is that all successful species favor their own species over any other. Any species that does not practice speciesism will fail to compete successfully for food and shelter, will fail to reproduce, and will become extinct.
So: there is nothing evil, per se, about practicing speciesism. In fact, it is mandatory for any species that wishes to survive and thrive.
“Rights” are a system humans came up with, essentially a strategy for advancing human welfare by reducing intraspecies competition. For instance, we don’t fight each other every night for the use of the warmest cave. We have property rights instead.
As human civilization developed, the various human communities developed different ideas of what rights there should be. That’s why in some societies it’s ok to beat your wife and children, or sell them into slavery, and in others that’s abhorrent.
“Human rights” are a strategy for further enhancing and standardizing the system of rights. And frankly, universal human rights are a tough enough sell without bringing animals into it.
I see “human exceptionalism” as a strategy for promoting human rights, and although the ideology is certainly debatable, I believe it can have a positive effect on the human rights campaign. And until the rabbits finish their space shuttle, I think there’s plenty of factual evidence to support the idea that humans are pretty special critters, and have earned some privilege.
The other benefit of the “human exceptionalism” ideology in my view is that it effectively counters some of the “speciesism” rhetoric of the AR movement, that seeks to establish that humans are of no more value than any other animal. That idea is harmful to the human race, and I see no problem in fighting fire with fire, or ideology with ideology.
November 2nd, 2009 | 6:48 pm
I agree that humans are special in their ability to make moral decisions, but that increases our responsibility to consider how our activities impact them. Otherwise our moral superiority is only theoretical. We have to actually act morally, not philosophize while acting like a brute.
For example, people sometimes justify eating meat by the fact that animals eat meat (though a great deal of our slaughtered animals are herbivores), but if we consider ourselves morally superior to animals, then it is contradictory to justify our activities by their example.
I have trouble with the idea that we should have special rights simply due to having a human body, at least the way species is normally defined. I believe it’s said in the U.S. Declaration of Independence that we have the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” but a criminal can lose these rights as a consequence of his activities. Therefore they are not rights but privileges determined according to our behavior. Permitting people to unnecessarily abuse and slaughter animals lowers the standard for humanity to a level where the morality test ought to result in a “fail.”
November 2nd, 2009 | 11:17 pm
“For example, people sometimes justify eating meat by the fact that animals eat meat (though a great deal of our slaughtered animals are herbivores), but if we consider ourselves morally superior to animals, then it is contradictory to justify our activities by their example.”
Very circular thinking there, Mr. Howard. First, we’re not “morally superior” to animals; we’re moral, they’re not. Morality is human. And btw, the AR ideology says we’re not superior to animals, so by that thinking we can do anything they do without guilt. Which is just one of the problems with that ideology.
The only justification we need for eating meat is that, like all other omnivores, we evolved (Wes might say “were designed”) to be able to process the meat of other animals as food. The fact that most of the animals we eat are herbivores is a good thing, because it effectively expands our food supply to include the grasses and grains that herbivores eat (and we can’t), and process into protein that we can eat and digest.
BTW, most of the fish we eat are primarily carnivores, living by eating eggs, hatchlings, etc. (Let’s not talk about what crabs and lobster eat.)
You are correct in saying that what we call “rights” are in fact conditional revokable privileges, as any prisoner could tell you. You have your privileges as long as you hold up your end of the social contract. I would like to see our educational system get that across more clearly. But if we as a species choose to extend those privileges on a benefit-of-the-doubt basis to all humans, I think that’s to our credit.
November 3rd, 2009 | 1:54 am
This is rather far afield of the original topic of the post, but the fact that I can be imprisoned is not a sign that my rights can be revoked, but that a just government deriving its power from the consent of the people can act to punish me in order to fulfill its duty to protect the rights of the rest of its citizens. If I attempt to damage other peoples’ life, liberty, or property, the civil power can lock me up to protect my neighbors and their rights from me.
That aside, I think that without some philosophical system in which rights are gained simply by being human, universal human rights are untenable. If we go with personhood theory as per HistoryWriter, it implies that some body of judges will have to determine whether a particular subject qualifies as a “person” by their lights, giving that body the power to grant or deny rights conditionally. Either every human has rights, or we’re in for a fairly arbitrary system of groups declaring certain people to be “non-persons”.
November 3rd, 2009 | 12:57 pm
Sparky, nicely written. I’ll accept your revision that human rights are generally suspended rather than revoked in the case of criminals. At least we hope that they’ll reform and re-assume their place in society. Unless of course, their punishment was of the capital variety, in which case “revoked” is a bit of an understatement.
November 4th, 2009 | 8:59 am
SparkVark and padraig: I disagree. The belief that moral capacity is superior to every other kind of capacity is simply a value judgment.
Consider that there may be a quantitative difference in moral capacity rather than a qualitative one. For example, within animal societies there are hierarchies not necessarily built on physical strength, and normative behaviors which are taught. Granted our own norms are more complex due to our unique ability to speak, but then gorillas have been taught sign language that enables them to express complex ideas.
So what is behind the idea that humans are the exceptional species? Without getting into metaphysics and religion, which present unprovable hypotheses, is it simply because we have more of what we personally value? I have pointed out before that my dog has been trained to do some things and not do others. My disapproval and my encouragement are strong motivators.
Is anyone here suggesting that morality is NOT a learned behavior as well; or that a moral sense is innate only in homo sapiens, and that we would be moral beings even in a so-called “state of nature?”
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact