One of the greatest threats to human exceptionalism comes from the ideology of people who work in the life and environmental science sector, who it seems, take every opportunity to subvert and undermine our self concept as the unique species in the known universe. The latest example can be found on the blog of the science journal Nature describing a session on dolphins to be presented at the upcoming American Association for the Advancement of Science national conference. From the blog:
A way forward in our dealings with dolphins is suggested by Thomas White, of Loyola Marymount University. He calls for the development of an “interspecies ethic” for governing relations between people and the “non-human people” that are dolphins. “Accomplishing this will require considerably more scientific research that demonstrates the cognitive and affective sophistication of dolphins and that uncovers more about the basic conditions that foster the welfare of both individual dolphins and their communities. Yet developing such an ethic could mark a significant turning point in the relationship between humans and other intelligent beings on the planet,” he writes.
No, dolphins are not people. They are delightful higher mammals. Human exceptionalism requires that we treat them humanely based on their capacities–unlike dolphins, we can be held morally accountable for our actions. But it is anti human to claim that they are equivalent to us as “people.” That such attitudes are being presented with a straight face at the prestigious AAAS national conference is a symptom of a serious underlying disease.
January 4th, 2010 | 5:56 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by J. Robert Howell, Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: Anti Human Exceptionalism Alert: Pushing Meme That Dolphins are “People” » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog – http://shar.es/aUEbo [...]
January 4th, 2010 | 6:39 pm
It ultimately comes down to intelligence when we are determining if a creature should be granted “human” rights or not, IMHO, and it appears that dolphins may be intelligent enough to warrant such a thing. You honestly seem unwilling to believe another creature on this planet is worthy of such a thing, and that our races superiority is without question. This would seem to be equally as dangerous, if not more so, than the extreme in the other direction. Everyone should be willing to question what they “know” to be fact. You do not appear to have this willingness, and instead have passed judgment on the entire issue, without apparently taking into account the evidence at hand.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 4th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
DMG: That’s correct. No other creature except humans is entitled to rights because they are not moral beings by nature. None other than humans are inherently liable to duties–unless injured or ill. Rights and responsibilities come together.
January 4th, 2010 | 6:52 pm
When he says “cognitive and affective sophistication,” the obvious question is, compared to what?
January 4th, 2010 | 7:28 pm
When I see a randy male dolphin on trial for sexual crimes, then and only then I may be open to considering them “people.”
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 4th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Indeed, they are known to force themselves on unwilling females. If I did it, it would be rape. But a dolphin can’t commit rape. They are incapable of forming criminal intent.
January 4th, 2010 | 7:48 pm
“and it appears that dolphins may be intelligent enough to warrant such a thing.”
That has not yet been established.
January 4th, 2010 | 7:50 pm
“When I see a randy male dolphin on trial for sexual crimes”
Also child murder.
January 4th, 2010 | 9:09 pm
[...] We’ve seen it before with regard to primates, but not it is our bottle-nosed friends who take the brunt of his attack: No, dolphins are not people. They are delightful higher mammals. Human exceptionalism requires [...]
January 5th, 2010 | 1:03 am
I assume that this means that the Dolphins get voting rights and if they are of age can drink in a bar. The problem would seem to be just how they will be able to drive their cars and mow their lawns. Will they be included in the new omnibus hate crimes that affect everyone except white Christian heterodox persons. If one goes out on a date with a dolphin is it impolite not to eat unscaled raw fish?
January 5th, 2010 | 2:20 am
If Dolphins were people, we’d have to allow marriage of a man to a dolphin, which would mean allowing a lab to try to create a human/dolphin hybrid child for a human-dolphin married couple. If we allow that, that would mean we consider dolphins people. If we don’t allow that, then they aren’t considered people.
People, and human beings, can be defined easily as the offspring of human people and potential mates of human people and potential progenitors of human people. Human exceptionalism needs a good definition of “human” and I think it should be based on, like all species definitions are, on creating fertile offspring.
January 5th, 2010 | 7:33 am
Morality is the important distinction. I think that it’s okay to think of certain animals as “people” as long as this designation isn’t intended to equal our status as “people.” Ie, we can recognize that animals form social structures, have feelings, etc, but we should not assert that they have the same standing as we do because of this. Because, we can make moral determinations about our actions and they cannot.
January 5th, 2010 | 7:36 am
For instance, I tend to think of my cat as a “person,” because he and I are close, he is my “baby,” and he really has different ways of communicating with me, even just to say, “hey, you’re back!” But, I also recognize that my cat isn’t the same as a person. If I were in a burning building and I had to choose between my cat or someone I didn’t like very much, I would, horribly painful as it would be, have to save the person I didn’t like and leave my cat behind, because of the inherent worth inherent in the human person that I cannot, in good conscience, grant to my beloved cat.
January 5th, 2010 | 3:39 pm
One thing I’ve always found interesting about the animal rights promoters is that one the one hand, they claim favoring humans over other animals is “speciesist” and therefore evil (I guess mostly because it ends in “ist”).
Yet when they talk about animals being as worthy as humans, they talk about the animals’ intelligence, social behavior, and other human-like characteristics.
So if humans are no better than other species, why are chimpanzees more important than slime molds? Why are dogs more important than krill? Why is Ingrid Newkirk more important than a cockroach?
The truth is we DO value other species according to their utility or similarity to humans, and that’s a good thing. Gets us to take an interest in their welfare, at the very least.
January 5th, 2010 | 5:45 pm
Hey Wesley, do you agree that it is the species of Human beings that is exceptional?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 5th, 2010 at 7:02 pm
Yes. All of us regardless of capacities.
January 5th, 2010 | 6:59 pm
Good Lord. Professor White is not even a scientist–he’s a business professor specializing in business ethics! What on earth is happening to Jesuit unversities??? Or to the AAAS, for that matter???
January 5th, 2010 | 9:26 pm
I think it sheds some light on Human exceptionalism to think about Humans as a species, and the defining characteristic of a species revolves around reproduction. What is “reproduced” by two members of a species is always another member of the species. A sheep never has a goat baby. A lion never produces another lion with a tiger. Wikipedia says most textbooks follow Ernst Mayr’s definition of a species as “groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups”.
I think it’s pretty noteworthy that all humans are born from human parents, and if they reproduce, they do it with another human, and always have a human baby. I think Human Exceptionalism should emphasize procreation as the definition of human, rather than some genetic or morphological or capacity measurement.
January 5th, 2010 | 11:30 pm
safepres, I get what you are saying, but I think the terminology we choose (even in our private thoughts) matters more than you suggest. Especially when it is in any way emotionally charged terminology, which I contend has the potential to shape our thinking in ways we don’t necessarily even want or realize.
January 7th, 2010 | 1:33 pm
As humans we are able to contemplate the question, ‘What should humans ought to be?’ That makes us exceptional.
When another species can do that, then they become exceptional also. When a dolphin ponders, ‘is dolphin gang-rape something that dolphins should or shouldn’t do,’ then you have something exceptional. Until then you have an intelligent animal that should be treated humanely.
January 7th, 2010 | 3:05 pm
Let’s go check the dolphin blogs and see what they say about us….oh, wait, never mind.
Sheesh
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 7th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Pancho Dos: Ha!
January 7th, 2010 | 3:09 pm
Don’t know who the first Pancho is..I’ll be Pancho Dos from now on…
January 7th, 2010 | 3:11 pm
Not sure who the first Pancho was. I’ll be Pancho Dos from now on…
January 7th, 2010 | 7:17 pm
I can’t take it with this “anti-human” paranoia and human-exceptionalism shooting-self-in-the-foot any more.
January 14th, 2010 | 11:22 pm
Why is it anti-human to think of animals on the same level as us? Just because we can express our thoughts with written words or specific languages in which other species can’t understand doesn’t make us better. We, humans, are animals. Other species communicate on levels we may never understand.
And not all animal rights activists believe some animals are higher or more valuable than others. I fully believe every living thing on the planet is just as important as the next. I also believe that on many levels animals and their communities are structured in ways that may be better or more beneficial to us if our own societies tried them.
As for the “raping” of one dolphin from another and the killing of their young in some instances, why is that seen as lower than our standards when thousands of humans do the same thing? I’m not saying it’s morally right for either species to act this way, but how can we see ourselves as better if many humans act the same as other animal species? Just because we have a judicial system that can use “lawful punishment”? And, if anything, there are far more humans in the world who commit the acts of killing and raping than the numbers of dolphins who do the same act. We are just as much an animal species as they are.
People need to stop acting so pompous. Just as other animal species may not (we might never know for sure) know human morals, we are also an ignorant species when it comes to the deeper connections of all other living things.
January 15th, 2010 | 2:49 am
One question:
when did humans stop being animals, because I think I must have missed that particular memo.
January 15th, 2010 | 10:15 am
I think hundreds, if not millions, of people have missed the memo that humans ARE animals.
Also, another point I forgot to make earlier is that people need to stop assuming things about animals. Everything is NEVER black and white. Other animal species besides our own, each and every one of them, are both alike us and not like us in various ways. Assuming that they are or are not like us in one way or another is always wrong. Always.
It’s like making a theory with only half the observations you need, and not experimenting after making the theory. You can’t have a valid theory if you don’t have evidence to support it.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 15th, 2010 at 10:18 am
Kaitlyn: People are animals, but we are more than that. Do you think your life has no greater value than a squirrel? Good grief, woman.
January 15th, 2010 | 10:54 am
I believe that we may be different in some ways, but have no more value than any animal of any sort. My life may have a different value since I’m of a different species, but it doesn’t make it the highest value any living thing’s life could have.
You are entitled to your opinion for your life, and I am entitled to mine.
January 15th, 2010 | 10:58 am
Is it wrong of me to feel that although humans may have exceptional characteristics, animals do as well, which means they are just as exceptional as we are? Every species has unique components and attributes. Why is there a constant need to put things on a scale?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 15th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
It is mistaken Kaitlyn. The things that animals might possess, e.g. dolphins’ incredible sonar, are not moral in nature. What humans uniquely posses, is.
January 15th, 2010 | 6:49 pm
But couldn’t one argue that incredible sonar is something quite exceptional, something humans do not possess? Which may not be the same thing as morality, but still has as much value. It’s almost like you didn’t read my notions correctly. Why is there a constant need to put things on a scale? Why is our ability to have “good” or “bad” morals more valuable than a dolphin’s sonar, or a shark’s ability to sense other fish or a human’s heart rate? These are all exceptional characteristics. All unique to each species. None more important than the one before it.
January 24th, 2010 | 4:54 pm
@ Kaitlyn
The notion that “I believe that we may be different in some ways, but have no more value than any animal of any sort.” is completely asinine. Take your assertion to an extreme and ask yourself if it really makes sense.
Example: You are in a biology lab when the building catches fire. You have only moments to escape the inferno. Your partner trips and breaks his ankle on the way out of the building and requires your help to escape. Do save A) your lab partner, or B) the slime mold you were studying?
“Why is our ability to have “good” or “bad” morals more valuable than a dolphin’s sonar, or a shark’s ability to sense other fish or a human’s heart rate? These are all exceptional characteristics. All unique to each species. None more important than the one before it.”
Our ability for morality is unique among all other animal characteristics because we CHOOSE. Does a shark choose to have an outstanding fish-detecting ability? Does a dolphin choose to have sonar? Those animals’ attributes are noteworthy and interesting but are neither good nor bad; they simply are. However, individual humans CHOOSE to be moral. We alone are able to plan our actions based on our abstract moral justifications, and because of this unique capability, humans alone are morally responsible for their actions.
Are army ants evil for fighting “wars” of “genocide” against competing hives? No. They are ants. They are not capable of conceptualizing or articulating the morality behind their actions. They simply combat each other because that is their nature. There are no conscientious objectors in their hives because they are incapable of understanding if their actions against their opposing hive are ethical.
Animals cannot conceive of complex abstract concepts (morality, beauty, greatness, mythology, etc) as humans can. This exempts them from moral judgment; ants and dolphins cannot be Good or Evil in the philosophical sense. However, because humans alone have this ability, all humans are are subject to morality and are morally responsible for their actions.
Additionally, the argument that our capacity for morality is equal to the physical characteristics of sharks or dolphins undercuts morality itself. Sonar is exempt from philosophical evaluation; it just IS. If you say that morality is also, then you imply that human morality is arbitrary and meaningless. If that is the case, the murder of 6 million Jews is of no greater significance than the “genocide” between anthills. Conversely, the only alternative is to imply that the death of 6 million ants is as great a tragedy and crime as 6 million humans. Both assertions are disgusting and offensive.
Dolphins may have the problem-solving capacity of a 10-year-old child, but it is not man’s sheer IQ that makes us unique. It is our capacity to understand, question, and analyze our own nature and conceptualize complex abstractions and provide value judgments on those abstractions. This is what makes a “person.”
When a dolphin is able to articulate the nature and purpose of his existence to me, explain his concept of aesthetic beauty, demonstrate a drive for “greatness”, then justify to me if he has led a moral or immoral life, I will be willing to consider it a “person.”
Until that can be demonstrated, a dolphin will remain a very intelligent, clever, graceful animal that deserves humane treatment.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact