One of the biggest–yet little known–agenda items of the animal rights movement is what is known as animal standing, that is, granting animals the right to bring lawsuits (discussed in detail in my book and in this article on NRO). (Of course, the real litigants would be animal rights and environmental extremists looking to shut down human enterprise and animal industries in support of their ideology.) Animal standing isn’t limited to the fringe: Cass Sunstein, President Obama’s regulations czar, and famed Harvard law professor, Laurence Tribe, are just two of the big names supporting granting animals the right to sue.
Radical animal and environmental activist lawyers keep filing lawsuits in the names of animals, so for without success. But there is no reason for them to stop: There is no downside. Bringers of these cases are never punished or sanctioned, and moreover, the activists know that all they need is one court ruling in their favor to breach the dikes, and these days, anything is possible in court.
The latest animal standing case, now pending, seeks a ruling that would grant a seal sea lion the right to sue. From the column by Christopher Stone, who claims to “represent” the seal:
It is not uncommon for a law professor to have a client on death row. Mine is a sea lion. He goes by C657, an identity branded into his flesh by the Army Corps of Engineers. C657 got onto the wrong side of the law by, allegedly, eating salmon at the base of the Bonneville Dam spillway in the Pacific Northwest. That, the National Marine Fisheries Service says, is a federal offense, punishable by rifle fire. We lost in the lower court, which ruled that sea lions had no standing. His case is before an Oregon appeals court. C657′s case involves much more than the fate of a single sea lion, and not merely because six similarly situated sea lions were shot in March when a stay of execution expired. The larger principle is the right of nonhumans to sue in their own names, with lawyers as their guardians. I believe the facts of C657′s case illustrate the merits of permitting some such suits.
The words we use matter. The seals weren’t “executed.” Execution under the rule of law is performed as punishment for a crime. The seals seal lions did not commit a crime, and indeed are incapable of such because they are amoral. They were destroyed–that’s the proper term–to save the salmon run as part of ecological management. To state otherwise is to try to turn seals sea lions into persons and the equivalent of humans. Of course, that’s the reason Stone used the term.
Stone next tries to downplay the importance of the whole thing by stating that lawsuits brought by animals and nature–which he also supports–will rarely happen, so no big deal:
Granted, the idea of rights for nature invites many objections. Among them I would not the include that: The courts, besieged on every hand. Will crowd with suits by chunks of land. Lawyers value their time, and brooks have shallow pockets. Lawsuits on behalf of nonhumans are therefore unlikely to be frivolous.
Who is he kidding? HSUS has more than $200 million in assets and is chewing at the bit (pardon the pun) to bring animal lawsuits. PETA is rolling in dough. Rich bank rollers like Paul McCartney will happily donate to animal lawsuits. Such suits could quickly become an easy way of raising big money from regular donors and could become a racket with animal industries paying protection settlement money to keep out of court. Then there is the pro bono bar at the big corporate firms that induce liberal young lawyers to work for big corporations, in part by agreeing to let them assuage their consciences by bringing “cause” lawsuits. No, with more than 100 law schools churning out lawyers trained in animal law, there would be an atomic explosion of such cases, and with, it the destruction of many animal industries.
But the real purpose of the suit isn’t just to save the seal sea lion, but to destroy human exceptionalism. Stone concludes:
C657 (currently reprieved in a Texas aquarium) wants his day in court. More than that, C657 wants to contest humankind’s self-appointed place atop the planet.
Please. C657 wants to do no such things. It is oblivious. No, Christopher Stone wants his ilk wish to “contest humankind’s self-appointed place atop the planet.” The seal sea lion is just the necessary prop to achieving that desired end.
When you think about it, this is all very odd. We dominate all other life forms. We manage species and environments. We are unquestionably atop the planet, to the point we are accused by the radical environmentalist crowd that we must sacrifice ourselves to save the planet from ourselves.
Stone may wish to pretend otherwise, but in his very attempt to destroy human exceptionalism, ironically, he is engaging in it. By urging self sacrifice for the sake of other species as a moral imperative, he seeks to force us to adopt a radical forbearance of which humans are uniquely capable. I mean our salmon industry is in real trouble, and one cause is the sea lions that eat countless millions of the fish before we can catch them. If we were like other species, we would try to kill our competitors or drive them away. But we protect them. Name one other known creature in the known universe that has ever done that but us.
June 13th, 2010 | 7:16 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Bobby Joe Bubba. Bobby Joe Bubba said: RT @CO2HOG: SHS: Radical Animal Rights: A Seal Sues http://bit.ly/9VhIGe #tcot [...]
June 13th, 2010 | 7:31 pm
Wesley Smith: You state that if we were like other species, we would try to kill or drive the seals away. Wait a minute! Are you not advocating these things if it suits human purposes? Ironies work both ways, you know. In your push to show how exceptional we are, you want us to behave toward animals in a most animalistic way, kill them, or run them off. The people you chastize most, for wanting animals to have the best protection most, ironically, behave in an exceptional way, but you want the option for us to behave animalistically if we want!
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 13th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
I advocate those things sometimes and not others, Bret. It’s called ethical analysis. My point was that we and only we would ever engage in such weighing and balancing, to the point that we will deny ourselves to benefit other species in certain instances.
June 13th, 2010 | 8:48 pm
[...] Radical Animal Rights: A Seal Sues » Secondhand Smoke | A First … Posted in Animal | Tags: agenda-items, article-on-nro, biggest, book, bring-lawsuits, right, [...]
June 13th, 2010 | 8:49 pm
[...] More details and analysis over at Secondhand Smoke. Comments (0) [...]
June 13th, 2010 | 9:51 pm
Wesley Smith: fair enough. But one could argue that what is really the pinnicle of human exceptionalism, and therefore something we all should strive for, is to grant other animals rights, even if it’s not to our covienence.
It stikes me as animalistic to kill seals, so that they don’t eat what we want to eat. This is precisely what another animal would do. The moral solution, in my view, and much more congruent with human exceptionalism, would be to find a solution more congruent with the seals flourishing, and our exceptionalism.
I want to be fair, and I do respect your views, but it does seem that anything we decide to do to mange (with the exception of torture, you’ve never, to your great credit advocated that) animals passes moral scrutiny. To give animals rights, would mean inconvienience for us, no doubt, but we would be exibiting the highest form of moral excetionalism: adherence to moral duty.
June 14th, 2010 | 12:25 am
Words DO matter. So when you label people who are concerned about the morality of causing unnecessary suffering as “extremists,” unfortunately you are saying volumes about your own ideological agenda. As does your hyperbolic ranting about how these “extremists” are demanding that we “sacrifice ourselves to save the planet from ourselves.” No one is asking that, except perhaps the people who think we should be out there killing off natural predators to “save” the ailing fishing industry.
Perhaps next time you want to write something like this, you could do a little fact checking, as that might help with your credibility. Some facts that you have wrong: The case in question is not about seals. It has nothing whatsoever to do with seals. It’s about SEA LIONS, a completely different species of animal. In fact, there are no seals left in the location where these sea lions are – there were once thousands of seals there, but hunters killed off every last one in the past century and they have never returned. Something that those of us who live out here really don’t want to see happen to the sea lions, who are also native here.
Something else you got wrong: Seals (and SEA LIONS) are not causing the decline of salmon. They are not a factor in the decline at all. Seals, sea lions, and salmon managed to live together here for many thousands of years without any problem for the salmon. It’s the salmon industry itself that has caused the decline in salmon (that, and the dams). How do I know? Because the sea lions numbered in the hundreds of thousands, and the salmon numbered in the tens of millions when white man came to the NW. If sea lions were a problem, you would not have seen 20 million salmon then because there were many more sea lions around then. Instead, the salmon only began to decline when the fishing industry arrived here, within the last century and a half.
If you would put a little more effort into checking facts and data, and a little less into pushing your own ideological agenda, you would probably have known that.
And you would have realized that sea lions don’t eat “untold millions” of salmon. Between 10 and 30 percent of a sea lion’s diet is salmon. On the other hand, between 70 and 90 percent of a sea lion’s diet is made up of fish that are natural competitors with the salmon. So, unlike the fishing industry, sea lion predation is actually healthy for the salmon as a species, if not for every individual salmon.
Another point? We may be out there managing all the wildlife we can for our profit and gain, but we’re doing a pretty poor job of it by any measurable standard. The most managed species are the closest to extinction.
That’s something else you would probably have known if you had cared as much about the truth as you do about pushing your own ideological agenda.
June 14th, 2010 | 5:39 am
“The seals did not commit a crime, and indeed are incapable of such because they are amoral.”
You said the same thing about wolves. I’m not familiar with seals, but wolves certainly have morality and I bet seals do too.
Wolves don’t normally attack or kill other wolves or steal their property. They have an instinctive morality, just like we do. However, like you, their morality does not extend to other species. They kill members of other species whenever they feel like it. Just like you.
Humans eating your fish? Oh goodness, arrest them, try them and if necessary, punish them to prevent future thefts, but certainly don’t kill them. Seals eating your fish? Just kill them. They’re members of a different species.
Those animal rights activists that you hate are trying to tell you that you have the morals of a wolf. Perhaps that’s why you hate them.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 14th, 2010 at 9:43 am
That’s not a morality Dave Mullenix, as in a thought out, worked through way of living. That is adaptation. I don’t hate animal rights activists. I disagree with them.
June 14th, 2010 | 8:06 am
Could the salmon sue the seal?
Or could the salmon sue the keepers of the seal? (I have assumed that because the seal is branded someone owns it or has responsibility for it)
June 14th, 2010 | 9:46 am
Wesley: Before you call people “radical” and “extremist,” you should do more research. These so-called “radicals” and “extremists” are becoming more main-stream; as you yourself show in your article. It is people like you who are turning into the minority. Maybe that should make you stop and think.
Also, keep in mind, we as humans have choices in terms of what we can eat. Seals do not. Thus, it is not seals who are eating away our food; it is us who are eating away the seals’ food; even though we definitely don’t need it. Just look at the obesity numbers in the U.S.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 14th, 2010 at 10:35 am
Phoebe: That’s precisely the problem. I am trying to alert the most of us that the once fringe is on the move.
June 14th, 2010 | 10:15 am
>>Or could the salmon sue the keepers of the seal?>>
Seems to me that if someone can claim to represent the seal, then someone can claim to represent the salmon. In that case, the seal should be prosecuted for murder, don’t you think? And for civil damages, the person who claims to represent the seal should also be sued, don’t you agree?
June 14th, 2010 | 10:16 am
Dear Dave
If, as you say,”wolves certainly have morality” then what is wrong with “having the morals of a wolf”?
June 14th, 2010 | 11:18 am
“I am trying to alert the most of us that the once fringe is on the move.”
Toward… what? What is your fear, exactly? That people will recognize that other species can think and feel, and thus deserve some moral consideration? You do realize, I assume, that pointing this out about people of other races and ethnicities than our own was once considered “radical” and “extreme” too. But the “once fringe” moved on that issue, and …isn’t that a good thing? Isn’t it?
I know you would have been one of the voices speaking out in favor of slavery and against civil rights at one time too. But now that the “once fringe” has managed to educate us all, you do see that racism was wrong, right? You do recognize that people of other cultures deserve the same moral consideration as people in our own culture, right?
Perhaps one day we will also recognize how misguided it was to treat members of other species as if their lives don’t matter. In my mind, that would be a good thing.
June 14th, 2010 | 11:26 am
The shame WJ Smith brought to his name with this article is astonishing. This is trite arguing for the sake of maintaining status quo. Stone’s suit is entirely appropriate for the time and place. As a society we must understand the balance between environmental protection and industrial opportunity. We “destroy” seals because they compete with our industry. The seals displayed this pattern long before fishing industries existed. The societal prioritization of commercial activity over the existence of individuals or species is appalling and MUST become the topic of a social discussion. Our courts are one of the appropriate venues for this discourse.
June 14th, 2010 | 12:57 pm
First of all C657 is a sea lion, not a seal. This lawsuit pertains to sea lions. It goes to the heart of the problem that the writer does not even differentiate between species. What is left unexamined here is why the salmon runs are declining. The declines are not from sea lions eating salmon,(they take no more than 4% of the run) which they have done for thousands of years on the Columbia, it is from overfishing, predation from non native fish, the dams and pollution. Overfishing is destroying the oceans. We as the ones on the top of the food chain as this writer claims, should be the ones to use our brains to solve it, not scapegoat an innocent creature who is simply following nature. At the same time the state agencies are killing sea lions, the fishing quotas have been raised. This makes no sense. If we as humans are so vastly superior, why are we not recognizing this fact and taking the necessary steps to save salmon? Stop overfishing the rivers and oceans.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 14th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Point doesn’t change in the least.
June 14th, 2010 | 2:07 pm
If Mr. Smith is as exceptional as he claims he would know the difference between Seals and Sea Lions.
Mr smith throws around terms like radical, environmental extremist, and I wonder what he would label BP’s oil spill in the gulf and their negligence on clean up. To me this is environmental terrorism perpetuated and inflicted on all living beings. Nobody ever said humans can have an endless supply and the rights to KILL ALL the resources. This is not about saving Salmon– The corporations have taken it upon themselves to put profit before life and that is the crime. Mr. smith humans are animals, and if you do not think animals should be protected from neglect, cruelty or death because they (Sea Lions) need to eat–than you — I suggest you go swimming in the oil in the gulf and than have this discussion. When all our air and oceans are polluted(80% of our air comes from the ocean) which is full of dead zones– 90% of all large sea life has already been decimated from greed from over commercial harvesting and human pollution- Genetically modified seed has destroyed the soil, and all for corporations to make a buck–This is the crime –All animals need protection from human greed and corporate fascism. Sea lions are not competing—Salmon is a gift from nature to the Sea Lion—It is the gill netters and the sport fishing industry’s introduction of non native species( for their sport) that is the biggest detriment to salmon. National Marine Fisheries latest study—does not point the finger at the Sea Lion but at human intervention and predation. Salmon recovery will never happen as long as fishing quotas continue to rise, and gill netters are allowed to pillage endangered salmon. In One day gill netters take what the Sea Lions eat all season. So Mr smith I suggest you do your home work on this issue, and learn the facts before you spout off like dope—I suggest you learn about what species are at stake, and you might be surprised to learn that yours is at the top of the list. Human Freedom Animal Rights One Struggle One Fight.
June 14th, 2010 | 3:38 pm
I wrote seal instead of sea lion. So? I know there is a difference in those species but that doesn’t change a thing about the point of this post. But I will change it.
June 14th, 2010 | 4:42 pm
Ninette,
Hm-m-m-m….Interesting subtleties you used in capitalizing “S”eal and “S”ea “L”ion, but not “m”r. “s”mith throughout your commentary.
If your message is that animals are more worthy than humans, in general, and Mr. Smith, in particular, then please explain why, then, you subverted both foundation and structure of your entire argument by capitalizing the corporate brand, “BP”?
June 14th, 2010 | 5:10 pm
The Veganist Jihad wants to return the entire world to a Vegan version of the 14th Century, with themselves as the Landed Overlords, and the rest of the human race as their serfs and peons. Absurdist garbage like this lawsuit is just another of the many avenues by which they attempt to do this. They are [some rhetoric deleted] the world needs to wake up [provocative description deleted] before they succeed.
June 14th, 2010 | 5:33 pm
I called the Texas Aquarium where C657, who prefers to be called Morgleump, is currently staying.
He told me his lawyer is a shyster and wasn’t listening to him. Says the whole case is all kinds of mixed up, bc his lawyer didn’t bother to engage a qualified Seal Lion interpreter. He’d fire the guy but he can’t find anyone else who speaks fluent Sea Lion to get it through the dude’s thick skull.
Morgleump told me that there’s all kinds of lawyers running around the shorelines and forests these days trying to talk his animal friends into suing. Says he’s ben chatting up some pigeons who want to sue the HSUS for coming up with birth control for them- they want nothing to do with the stuff, never gave informed consent for population control and would love to sue the pants off Wayne Pacelle, tell him to get his mitts off their wings.
June 14th, 2010 | 6:36 pm
This is the beginning of the slippery slope funded by PETA-HSUS-AFA-etc. First it is a sea lion, then a chinchilla, then a cow, then a pig, then a salmon, then a laboratory mouse. The animal rightists are using this as one test case. Another is pushing for the arrests of University of Wisconsin scientists working for the U.S. Navy studying decompression sickness. The non-use-of-any-animal-for-any-purpose-folks (no zoos, circuses, farms, pets, leather, drugs, medical devices, etc.) are probing for weaknesses everywhere, and with $200+M can send us all to the Dark Ages if we let them. I’m not saying that the use of all animal use must be allowed (dog fighting, bull baiting, hunting of endangered animals, etc.), but the silent majority needs to place a line-in-the-sand somewhere before the entire beach is gone.
June 14th, 2010 | 8:16 pm
When the animals all have opened their own bank account and can sign their name, when they have their own vehicles and insurance bought with the earnings they have worked to bring home to buy the groceries, perhaps I will consider them equal to humans. I love my animals “as if they were my children” but I know they are NOT children, they are a different species and have different needs, they depend on ME to “bring home the bacon” and serve it and they depend on ME to make their lives comfortable with equipment/bedding appropriate for them and to care for them in toto.
June 14th, 2010 | 8:46 pm
The problem, as I see it, is that you’re not taking human exeptionalism to its logical conclusion. Wesley you acknowledge that concern for animals is a manifestation of human exceptionalism ( in an attempt to show the inconsistency of those animal rights activists who deny human exceptionalism) and yet you refuse to advocate giving animals rights, which is the logical extention of human exceptionalism. I’m sure you’ll say I’m missing something, but I’m thinking you want it both ways.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 14th, 2010 at 9:14 pm
Bret: Giving animals rights denies human exceptionalism because it elevates animals into the moral sphere in which only humans (as far as we know) reside.
June 14th, 2010 | 8:59 pm
The fact of the matter is most people, fortunately, are in favor of legislation to protect animals, and many are in favor of animal rights. Wesley Smith, you’re a man of great talents, and you’ve done considerable good in favor of human rights, and fighting euthanasia. it’s a shame that you’re using your considerable talents trying to prevent other sentient, intelligent creatures from having protection from bad people. clearly human exceptionalism requires you to follow wherevver the argument leads? There’s a reason that animal rights has gained momentum: it has reason, a human exceptionalism quality, on its side.
June 14th, 2010 | 10:31 pm
where is the lawyer for the salmon demanding law enforcement protect them from the murderous sea lion?
June 14th, 2010 | 10:53 pm
If the sea lion is to have human rights, it should also have human responsibilities. Any human who illegally ate endangered salmon would be prosecuted under Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act for committing a felony and be subjected to jail and heavy fines. If the sea lion has standing, he can also be indicted, and convicted, and placed in prison. Where he will be subject to abuse by the other prisoners, the same as any human felon.
The truth is that the animal rights activists don’t want to make animals equal to humans, they want to make them superior to us, with rights but no responsibilities. Putting animals into court is just a sophisticated kind of anthropomorphism, like putting hats on dogs and vests on monkeys. It can be a fun little fantasy, but any judge who thinks he is getting paid to play this kind of game should be impeached for the crime of fraudulently collecting a salary. I am serious.
June 14th, 2010 | 10:58 pm
A shysters dream: Class action suit for clients who cannot tell him to go to hell because their conscience won’t let them be part of his greed.
Can anyone tell me why this won’t happen if an animal could sue?
June 14th, 2010 | 11:54 pm
Wow. Well at least the author *finally* managed to get the right species. Funny, though, how he uses the comment section to dismisses the importance of the fact that he could not even get such a very basic and fundamental fact as the species that he’s discussing right. Wesley, if you don’t even know what species you’re talking about, how can we assume you know anything at all about the rest of this issue? Clearly, you do not. You are simply trying to push a narrow, ideological agenda, mindless of the pesky old facts that simply get in the way of your ponderous pontifications.
I have to add two things here: 1. “Veganist Jihad”? Gee. No paranoia or hysteria here. No way. Good thing we have even-tempered, level minded folks like this to guard us from those (ahem) “extremists.”
And 2. So Wesley feels that the facts of the matter are a complete side issue, because the real important thing is apparently this: “Giving animals rights denies human exceptionalism because it elevates animals into the moral sphere in which only humans (as far as we know) reside.”
Human exceptionalism. A completely made-up phrase that encompasses a fantasy world in which we, and we alone, awesomely rule the world. The problem here is that it was made up by the same armchair theorists, dismissive of fact, reason and logic, who once gave us academic sounding tomes “explaining” why white people were better than black people.
Here’s a scary thought for you: What if non-human animals actually DO merit moral consideration? What if the fact that they have the ability to think and to feel and to reason and, importantly, to SUFFER, is enough to justify some moral consideration for them? What if just the fact that they look different from you, Wesley, is not enough to bar them from that consideration? What if you’re not so exceptional after all, but just seriously misguided and unwilling to concede that maybe your “in group” is not so exclusive as you thought.
We cannot know whether this is the case or not from reading your flippery, because you base it on nothing other than your own navel gazing. There is no examination of facts here, only personal opinion, driven by ideology. Hardly anything to justify the ink here.
If you want to actually add something to the body of our collective cultural knowledge, Welsey, you will need to actually acquaint yourself with the facts at hand. It is not enough just to have, and spout, groundless opinions. We all have plenty of those on our own. Better to see if your opinion can actually hold up to facts before attempting to set them down in the crumbling stone of Academia. (Yours don’t.)(You don’t even have the species right. If you can’t get that right, you certainly don’t have the actual facts behind the lethal removal program, behind the reasons why so many of the people who live out here in the affected area of the country are opposed to this killing, behind the reasons why killing a natural predator is a mindless, extremist, and absurd way to “manage” wildlife and it will never bring back the salmon… and so on. In other words, Wesley, you are sadly mistaken and it shows on so many levels.)
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 15th, 2010 at 1:04 am
But Bill: We do, in a sense, “rule the world.” We manage it, that’s for sure. Not well, often. to be sure. But manage it we do. On the other hand, all other species in the wild are totally subject to nature. They have no capacity to step beyond it. We tend to make parts of nature subject to us. In other words, we have stepped outside of the naked Darwinian struggle for survival and ascended to a wholly unprecedented level. And if that isn’t exceptional, what is it?
Embrace your incalculable value Bill Johnson! You are human. That matters morally.
June 15th, 2010 | 12:35 am
Mr. Smith these last comments prove that humans have a long way to evolve before they should consider themselves exceptional and above the rest. Humans have been exceptional at destroying a beautiful planet for money and toys– when all the Salmon, Sea Lions and oceans are dead, and you are gasping for air and sucking on stones because of thirst –The word is Extinction Mr. Smith, and that is not a product of exceptionalism, but a product of greed….
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 15th, 2010 at 12:59 am
Ninette: Get a grip. But it probes the misanthropy of animal rights believers, assuming you are one.
June 15th, 2010 | 2:02 am
It is not surprising that this sort of debate becomes emotionally charged – in many ways it should be. Because, in my view, we are dealing with a fundamental shift in the underlying assumptions of our moral code.
As a Christian, I do believe that humans are different from other parts of creation. We are the pinnacle, nothing else comes close. And that is not our doing but the way God made things. He made man “in His own image”, we are the only creatures God breathed life into, the scriptures tell us that we are fearfully and wonderfully made, that we are “little less than a god”. We have been made “ruler over the works of your hands”.
To say this is not to say that we can do what we like – we are stewards of creation, not its murderers.
And this approach is mirrored in other religions. Also, this has been taken in as the moral code that has guided society for centuries.
However, the sort of thinking behind these attempted law suits proposes a different order, a different moral compass. To me, it seems to want to argue that animals have the same standing in the eyes of God as a human being. So this is not a narrow ideological agenda – it is a profound upheaveal of our moral code.
It may well be that such a shift is warranted but let us at least ackowledge that it is a serious matter. I have always considered that the strength of someone’s argument is in inverse proportion to the amount of sarcasm they employ in supporting it.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 15th, 2010 at 10:04 am
Yes, Simon Whitney, I call that “fundamental shift” the coup de culture. It seeks to supplant Judeo/Christian moral philosophy as the basis of society–with its focus on the importance of the individual and equality–with utilitarianism, hedonism, and scientism/radical environmentalism as the reigning faith. That would lead away from human freedom and to tyranny.
June 15th, 2010 | 4:26 am
“That’s not a morality Dave Mullenix, as in a thought out, worked through way of living. That is adaptation. I don’t hate animal rights activists. I disagree with them.”
I’ve noticed in this and other threads that philosophy seems to be a key requirement for morality in your system. If you can’t think something out, you don’t have real morality and, presumably, can be shot for eating the King’s salmon. I don’t know where that would place uneducated deaf-mutes in your system or pre-speech cavemen or modern infants and children, for that matter.
In the real world, morality evolves to let some species enjoy the astonishing benefits of living in groups, including the division of labor and trade. (See Robert Wright’s Non-Zero or The Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley for examples. Or Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations.) I think the Catholic church calls such morality Natural Law.
Regardless of how we come to possess it, what you call adaption is actually morality and humans, wolves and other animals that live in groups either have it or it’s impossible for them to live in groups.
Simon Whitney: “If, as you say,”wolves certainly have morality” then what is wrong with ‘having the morals of a wolf’?”
Because Wolf Morality is no better than Wesley’s Morality. Humans really are exceptional in many ways and one of those ways is that we have the potential to construct much better moralities than other species – IF we use our considerable mental powers to do so. But what most of us seem to do in practice is think up new justifications for behaving like wolves.
The animal rights people are constructing a truly human morality, one that is better than anything the wolves will ever have and more power to them.
June 15th, 2010 | 9:36 am
Oh Wesley….we manage it? And that’s a GOOD thing? Just look around you. I wish I had the skill Bill Johnson has, but hope that he responds to yet another idiotic remark.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 15th, 2010 at 9:59 am
Bess: You think life was better in the hunter-gatherer era, or just the gatherer? Very low life expectancies, at the complete sway of nature, etc. Women dying young in childbirth. People dying in agony. Etc. We in the West have life so good and grouse so much.
June 15th, 2010 | 9:56 am
Wes: “But Bill: We do, in a sense, “rule the world.” We manage it, that’s for sure.”
True enough within our sphere of influence. But it should be noted that the human sphere of influence is a pretty small percentage of the earth’s surface. Get out in the oceans, or in the remaining jungles and rain forests, and human beings can topple off the top of the food chain pretty quickly.
Also unfortunately true that when we try to expand our sphere, such as to the ocean floor below the Gulf of Mexico, we can be pretty darn damaging. Sooner or later, though, I have to think Nature is going to have the last laugh.
Like a baseball man once said about weather, “Tough out. Bats last.”
June 15th, 2010 | 11:30 am
“On the other hand, all other species in the wild are totally subject to nature. They have no capacity to step beyond it. We tend to make parts of nature subject to us. In other words, we have stepped outside of the naked Darwinian struggle for survival and ascended to a wholly unprecedented level. And if that isn’t exceptional, what is it?”
See, now this is where it’s pretty obvious that this author is, indeed, just sitting around “thinking” and not really observing the world. Just as others have pointed out that he started off not even having the species of animal he was discussing right, I feel compelled to point out how utterly disengaged from truth and logic Mr. Smith is in this piece.
Smith, you think we are “disengaged” from nature? You think we’ve stepped out of the Darwinian struggle, and thus are “exceptional”? Clearly you have not studied the very case you are discussing (as if we needed more proof than that you thought it was about “seals”). Because the reason that sea lions are being killed in the NW is not because the ecosystem needs to be managed at all. In fact, it has been managed to death for the extraction of profit, and THAT, my friend, is the problem out here. (Yes, I live here, so this issue is important to me in a way you cannot comprehend.)(And I understand it in a way that you clearly do not.)
The reason the sea lions are being killed has nothing to do with saving endangered salmon. If those pushing this program cared about saving salmon, they would have capped fishing quotas. They did not: They RAISED fishing quotas every single year that sea lions have been dying for nothing out here. If this were about saving salmon, there would have been reasoned approaches that actually addressed the KNOWN CAUSES of the salmon decline: dams, over fishing, habitat destruction, and can I say it again: OVER FISHING. Gill nets would have been banned from the river. They were not. Nothing is being done to save the salmon from the things that are actually endangering them. Sea lions are being killed. Why?
Because humans are, fundamentally, very territorially aggressive animals. Yep. We don’t even give it a thought – as a rule, most of us just kill any other animal who dares to get within our sphere. We react out of an innate sense of competition with the other animals of this planet. Think about it for a moment. Bugs in your house? Kill them! How DARE they invade your territory! Moles in your yard! Kill them! How dare they mar your lawn! Mice in the basement? Kill them! They’re taking over your space! This is the human impulse. It’s not “management,” so much as just naked competition and ancient territoriality. I would love to see us rise above that facet of ourselves, and some of us have. But most humans, and certainly you and those you defend in this article, have not. You are simply defending the animal nature within us and trying to call it something else.
So you think that because we can “manage” nature, even when we do it badly, we are “exceptional”? I think you have never watched an ant colony tending its garden or herding its resident aphids. I think you’ve never seen a termite mound, or studied a feral cat colony to see how the cats regulate their own populations and remove all competitors from their realm. I think you’ve never seen beavers carefully constructing dams and other structures in a feat of engineering that makes our own dam builders jealous – and they do it without accidentally wiping out whole species. I think you know nothing about other primates, who are also very territorially aggressive and “manage” away species who scare them or bother them or compete with them…. There’s a lot about the world one can miss while gazing at one’s own navel.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 15th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Name one other species that can manage nature. Yes, it means we are exceptional. And you prove my point of the anti humanism of animal rights activists and environmental radicals. Thanks.
June 15th, 2010 | 11:45 am
(I’d also like to respectfully request that you put the word “seal” back into the title of this article, as it was originally, and then draw a line through it – to be clear and transparent that it has been edited and that the article was flawed from its very title when it originally went up. It took numerous comments to inform you that you were actually talking about sea lions and not seals before you finally made the change. And then you basically said, “big deal.” As in, “So I was wrong about all the facts, my opinion still stands. Big deal.” And that is, my friend, a very big deal.)
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 15th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
I did that yesterday, Anna. What a huge fuss over a minor matter.
June 15th, 2010 | 12:23 pm
Sea Lions eat Salmon they always have they always will. This is an act of sustanance not a crime or sport– This act if not completed will result in death, but the act of eating should not be punashable by death–There is a lot of corporate brain washing that has taken root for such exceptional humans to actually believe this is a crime–There are birds flying in protected air space –are they breaking the law? Their are dogs eating bones and cows chewing cud–These acts are not criminal either. Until industry says so? BP has destroyed over 300 miles of coastline, and is this a crime? Or is this exceptional humans doing what they do best–A few Profiting from this planet’s misery and the rest of us starving– The bottom line is Sea Lions eat salmon and that is not a crime. The crime is the fishing industry and NOAAH have privatized our oceans and rivers and sold off to the highest bidder what was never theirs to begin with–This is the crime Mr. Smith–and when the oil starts raining from the sky–you still can’t drink it or breathe it, and when their are no salmon left because industry stole them all for profit –you can’t eat the money.
You better a grip Mr Smith, and an exceptional health care insurance because those pointing the finger at the Sea Lion can soon be pointing the finger at you and your family for being useless eaters. This is the Crime.
June 15th, 2010 | 2:04 pm
Seems to me that this article was about animals being given standing in courts of law; not the proper management of seal lions and salmon.
stay on topic folks.
June 15th, 2010 | 5:10 pm
If I had a quarter for each time I came to http://www.firstthings.com.. Great writing.
June 15th, 2010 | 8:30 pm
Wesley Smith: You state that giving animals rights elevates them to the moral sphere where only humans reside. But this begs the question as to why only beings who understand and can behave morally should be the only ones with rights. You’ve made no airtight argument, at least I haven’t seen one, for this.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 15th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
No Bret: The issue is why should animals have rights. If they do, only we will have to respect them. They won’t respect each others or ours.
June 15th, 2010 | 9:00 pm
Wesley, the commenters aren’t proving your point regarding the anti-humanism of people who support animal rights at all. On the contrary, I would be willing to bet quite a sum that those people are out there doing a lot more good for other humans than you are. My sense is that people who are concerned about animal suffering also tend to be concerned about human suffering. In fact, they tend to be the very people out there struggling for a better world for all of us, rather than sitting at their keyboards in the (intellectual and literal) darkness, huffing out opinion pieces devoid of even the most basic facts.
I like the way you dismiss Anna’s request that you edit the title back to reflect that you changed “Seal” to “sea lion” only after having it pointed out to you multiple times that you were completely wrong about the most basic fact of the lawsuit – that of the species being litigated over. You call this “a huge fuss over a minor matter.” So in your world, then, to be clear, you find facts and figures and truth and logic and accuracy “minor matters” not worth fussing over, while you find your own baseless mental meanderings the ground of truth worth foisting on people more concerned about reality than about the ponderings floating around in your head.
Regarding this, which you said to a commenter above:
“I call that “fundamental shift” the coup de culture. It seeks to supplant Judeo/Christian moral philosophy as the basis of society–with its focus on the importance of the individual and equality–with utilitarianism, hedonism, and scientism/radical environmentalism as the reigning faith. That would lead away from human freedom and to tyranny.”
I’d just like to quote back to you what you said to Ninette above: “Get a grip.”
Those words are more relevant to your hysteria than to her well expressed cautions.
Once again, I think anyone who reads this thread can see for themselves who is concerned about accuracy and truth, and who is only concerned with shoving a narrow and moribund ideology down the throats of others. No, I am not talking about Christianity, as I firmly believe that your lifeless rhetoric misses the entire New Testament, where the main message seems to be compassion for the suffering of others – even, and perhaps ESPECIALLY when those “others” do not belong to your ingroup.
Your ideology is flawed to the very core, and you are trying to brand all of Christianity with your own pontifications. That’s an insult to every compassionate Christian.
June 15th, 2010 | 9:11 pm
I find a lot of this conversation to be sadly reflective of society in general. Why are there so many of us who so tenaciously cling to our own so-called “exceptionalism” at the expense of others? This mental ossification is an old vestige of a very mean spirited nature in us. Every war has this at heart. Every evil we have done to others, be they human or non human, springs from this well. I do not think this is a Christian sentiment. Sadly though, I think that this sentiment has co-opted many Christians just as surely as it has co-opted many people from all faiths and walks of life. Such is human nature.
The author says, “The issue is why should animals have rights. If they do, only we will have to respect them. They won’t respect each others or ours.” Would we justify the intentional infliction of suffering upon children on these grounds? Seems to me a very mean and petty line to draw. Seems to me very arbitrary, and intended to justify a comfortable and self appointed position at “the top.” A position gained by being willing to hurt and kill and use and oppress anyone or anything that we can. Did this author read a different Bible than I did? Because my morality is based on transcending exactly those petty sentiments. I don’t know what his is based on, but it isn’t compassion or mercy or goodness if he can argue for the infliction of suffering upon others for his own gain. And that is what he is doing in every word he writes. He makes less sense as he goes along.
Morality is doing the right thing for its own sake, not for the sake of what you can get for it. It means going what is right because it’s the right thing to do, and not because you expect others to do it too. I know a lot of non human animals who are better than that than Wesely Smith. I do not think he understands morality very clearly.
June 15th, 2010 | 11:32 pm
Whether it’s a seal or a sea lion isn’t the point. This is about giving animals the right to sue in a court of law. First of all, with rights come responsibilities. Animals do not have the brain capacity to fulfill those requirements. But more important, who is asking these animals what they want? And who is interpreting what they are saying? How do we KNOW what they think? Animals kill each other every day in the wild. How come they get to do it, but Pacelle and his minions think that we shouldn’t? He wants us all to be vegans – even came out with a vegan dog food. Who’s going to explain to a lion that he can’t kill a zebra for food? And do you think the lion will listen? No, he won’t, so we’ll have to arrest him for murder. Besides, how long would a lion live on a vegan diet anyway? Don’t they teach biology in school any more? Lions are carnivores. Another thought, if animals can sue US, then obviously, we can sue THEM, but animals don’t have a conscience, so locking them up as punishment for behaviors we deem criminal will mean nothing to them. If your pet monkey got loose and drive your car into a neighbor’s tree, who would get sued, you or the monkey? Get real, people. Animals don’t have the cognitive ability of humans. Until they do, they can’t drive a car and they can’t sue in court. I can’t believe we’re even having this conversation. It’s ridiculous.
June 16th, 2010 | 1:40 am
“Wolves don’t normally attack or kill other wolves or steal their property. They have an instinctive morality, just like we do. However, like you, their morality does not extend to other species. They kill members of other species whenever they feel like it. Just like you. ”
Actually, it isn’t that uncommon for wolves to kill each other. When wolves do kill each other, steal another pack’s kill, rip open the womb of a pregnant deer just to eat the tasty fetus and leave the mother to bleed out and die, etc. they are not acting morally wrong or bad. They are just being wolves.
http://www.wolfsongnews.org/news/Alaska_current_events_3015.html
June 16th, 2010 | 2:23 am
Dear Catherine
I do think that you have hit on the very real problem that this thinking has for me.
This sort of argumentation leads to the position that animals are on a par with human children. And it leads to people saying that they “know a lot of non-human animals that are better than” a human being.
All I am saying is that this is not what the Bible teaches. And if we want a morality based on something different then we need to be clear that this is what we are going to get if we follow this sort of argument to its logical conclusion.
To take your own example: children. We live in a culture where do we inflict death on our own children precisely because we have argued that they are not fully human when in the womb and therefore we have the right to terminate their existence.
It seems to me that we should get our own morality in order before inflicting it on others.
June 16th, 2010 | 11:10 am
For those afraid that this sort of arguing will lead to the startling notion that animals are “on par with human children,” I respectfully remind you all that this is exactly the same argument once used to express fears that giving Black people rights would (GASP!) put them on par with white people. They took it as self evident fact that this was absurd and ridiculous, simply because their own self-centered and narrow mindset could see no other possibilities. I am hoping that is not the case now, that most of us have evolved past that kind of thinking. But we’re still doing it to those who are a lot different from us, for the same reasons, and with the same lack of any real basis for it other than that it works for us.
There is nothing in the Bible that precludes morality toward non human animals. NOTHING. I suggest you go back and read the New Testament again. And again, and again, and again. Until you actually get the message there. Because it is there.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 16th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Anna: It is offensive to equate animals with black people. The argument on behalf of slavery was invidious and wrong because intrinsic equals were being treated as inferior. Animals are not our equals. And to use the BIBLE is nonsense. Whether or not one believes the Bible, it says we are uniquely made in God’s image. The Bible establishes animal sacrifice. Christ ate lamb at the Last Supper, it being the Passover Feast. He did not decry the sacrifice, he decried the money changing. He said that our lives were worth more than many sparrow. Etc. Certainly the Bible can, and I believe does, support animal welfare. But not in the least animal rights.
June 16th, 2010 | 3:31 pm
Anna, I’ve found most damaging philosophies and practices are founded on one big lie, which the practice’s supporters then have to rationalize. In the case of slavery, the big lie was that black folks were non-human, or less than human. If you look at pro-slavery documents of the era, or today’s racist documents, they argues that blacks were not in fact human beings. Obviously they were and are human, or mixed-race children would not be possible, and blacks would not be capable of participating in human society.
Once we declared slavery illegal, the rationalizations began melting away. The lie that held that certain humans were not humans was exposed and rejected.
Is there such a lie preventing animal rights from becoming a reality? No. The lie comes when animal rights supporters try to imbue animals with human qualities and values.
If we treat humans as humans and animals as animals, there’s no problem. Any idea based on convincing us that animals are humans or vice versa, is fundamentally flawed.
The abolition of slavery does not indicate the justice of animal rights, it proves the justice of HUMAN rights.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 16th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
What padraig said, particularly the last sentence.
June 16th, 2010 | 5:08 pm
Dear Anna
When Jesus cast the demons out of the man and sent them into the pigs at Gadara was he not very concerned about the welfare of the man and rather less concerned about the welfare of the pigs?
Does Jesus not show that he thought that there is a qualitative difference between human beings and animals? Are we not worth more than many sparrows?
And no-one here is advocating a lack of concern for creation in all its forms – it is just (as Padraig says) that the bible makes a distinction between between human beings and the rest of creation.
June 16th, 2010 | 8:31 pm
Wesley Smith: I agree that we have to establish why animals should have rights. But I think that that has already been established: the empirical evidence is overwhelming that at least mammals, possess consciousness, which is the rational basis for concluding that they have rights. It’s just that we humans have a remarkable ability to ignore facts, that we don’t like.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 16th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
So Bret, you follow Gary Francione’s views that sentience brings rights. He is the animal rights activist I most respect. He is a principled pacifist and, I think, a man apart from PETA and the like. Are you vegan?
June 16th, 2010 | 8:47 pm
Wesley Smith: it’s irrelevant that other animals will not “respect” each others rights or ours. Just as it’s irrelevant that human babies won’t respect other human babies rights, or comotose people won’t respect other comotose people’s rights, etc.
It’s simply a fallacy, to claim, as you do, that a being must be able to recognize others rights for it to have rights. Frankly, if you tried to get this “argument past your law professors in law school, you would have flunked.
June 17th, 2010 | 12:49 am
Dear Bret
For me this is where I lose the plot. I don’t understand how conciousness automatically leads to a being having rights. I suppose it partly depends on what is meant by “concsiousness”. If you could give me a potted explanation (preferably 250 words or less!!) I would be most grateful.
In terms of “empirical evidence” that seems to me to point overwhelmingly to the fact that human beings are of a different order altogether from other creatures made by God. We have law courts, for a start!
Putting something within the moral sphere carries with it certain requirements. I do think that there has to be a link between rights and responsibilities. And part of our responsibilities as human beings is to look after the planet – because no-one else is capable of doing it. Not even the most intelligent, self-conscious mammal.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 17th, 2010 at 8:54 am
Simon: It is a low common denominator to use as a way to make humans just another animal in the forest. In other words, it is arbitrary. But in a sense, all first principles are.
June 17th, 2010 | 3:55 am
I echo Bill Johnson’s statement that people who are for animal rights tend to want to do all they can to reduce human suffering as well. Which only makes sense. All life on earth is ultimately related, so having sympathy for one, could easily diffuse into sympathy for the related beings.
That’s why I’ve never quite understood your assertion that animal rights people generally (I think you believe in exceptions) are “misanthropic”. Having one naturally leads to another. That is, believe in human rights, you believe in animal rights. This is congruent with the empirical evidence, that clearly indicates, a strong correlation between children who abuse animals, and these same children abusing people.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 17th, 2010 at 8:50 am
Bret: No they don’t. They try to interfere with medical research that would alleviate a lot of human misery. That is hardly doing “all they can do.” Quite the opposite.
June 17th, 2010 | 11:01 am
The question is should Sea Lions be put to death for eating? The answer is absolutely NOT.
Should humans be put to death for being stupid? Absolutely not.. Should animals be protected under the law from stupid humans who wish to harm them by not letting them eat? –absolutely
Should stupid humans be protected under the law from other stupid humans hurting other stupid humans? Absolutely, so What is the problem?
June 18th, 2010 | 1:43 am
Apparently, my post answering Wesley’s question, about whether I’m a vegan, somehow failed to arrive. I’m not sure what happened. It was sent yesterday.
At any rate, I do consume dairy products, and eat chicken. I do NOT eat any mammals. The reason being that mammals are unquestionably conscious. I have not been convinced that birds and other nonmammals are conscious, hence my willingness to eat chicken. However, the jury is still out on this one, and I will stop eating chicken if I see some convincing evidence that birds possess consciousness. Mammals have a neocortex, which is the brain structure where consciousness resides. Non mammals do not have a neocortex. So, unless nonmammals have consciousness that is mediated through another brain region, they’re not conscious. But this makes me rather uneasy, since bird behavior often seems more than purely reflexive, so I’m very open to having mu mind changed.
My focus, therefore, at least provisionally, is to persuade others that all mammals are conscious, and therefore entitled to rights. And maybe we can add other nonmammals to the rights list, if evidence shows that they’re conscious as well. birds do look promising in this area.
i think that it’s an absolute disgrace, and a sign of the morally corrupt culture that we live in, that cows, and pigs, highly intelligent creatures, are brutally slautered every day for “food”. I have not eaten cows, pigs, or any other mammal for years, and i don’t miss it a bit.
June 18th, 2010 | 1:55 am
Simon Whitney: The reason consciousness is the criterion for rights, is that it causes one to have awarenss of the outside world, and the capacity to suffer pleasure or pain. That means that the conscious creature’s life matters to it. Its life, “belongs” to it.
Which animals are conscious depends on the neurobiological evidence, Certianly all mammals are. Birds and reptiles, the evidence is ambiguous, but I’m leaning toward at least some birds, and some reptiles being conscious. This bothers me though, because we really don’t know how many are or are not conscious, therefore, we should give all animals the benefit of the doubt, and never intentionally harm them.
We humans, of course are conscious, as at least mammals are, and we’re also possessing “secondary consciousness” where we can reflect in a “meta” fashion that we’re conscious, and we can reason. The latter two properties, that apparently only humans possess, seem like unreasonable criteria, to give only humans rights.
June 18th, 2010 | 2:08 am
Wesley: You’re only talking about a small portion of animal rights activists. Most are highly caring, nonviolent people, indeed, these traits are what prompted them in the first place to support animal rights.
Ninette: I agree totally. One would think that the ones who are advocating killing the sea lions, just because the sea lions need to eat, would be ashamed of their craven, selfish, disgraceful behavior. So much for being exceptional.
June 18th, 2010 | 3:29 am
i would like to give thanks to all of the eloquent postings here on behalf of animals. It makes me happy knowing that animals have such articulate, and kind defenders.
I believe that twenty or thirty years from now, if we keep up the good work, at least some animals will have rights, protected by law.
June 18th, 2010 | 5:57 am
Simon Whitney: if i could add, you state that with rights comes responsibilities. That sounds good, but what do you mean exactly? Clearly, babies, down’s syndrome sufferers, people who are asleep, pychopaths, etc., CANNOT behave morally toward us, but you, Wesley Smith, and others are willing to give them a pass, but not animals. Why the double standard? Part of being a member of the human exceptionalism club, I would conclude, is following the argument to its logical conclusion. And, speaking of responsibilities, when we find that our long cherished argument has a flaw, (the double standard of letting all nonrecpricating humans off the hook), isn’t it right to renounce your flawed belief?
Sadly, this refutation of “humans get rights because they can reciprocate morally” fallacy is simply ignored. thereby providing further evidence of another exceptional quality of humans:the propensity to believe what we want to believe, regardless of the evidence. Hume did say that reason is the slave of the passions, after all.
June 18th, 2010 | 11:57 am
Dear Bret
Many thanks for the explanation. I will think about it. As I said, it rests on your definition of “consciousness” and yours seems very basic indeed. If I were to attempt a definition of consciousness I would include a number of other factors. However, with my bias I would probably try and get all the factors that make us human and bundle them up.
As to having double standards – that is easier to answer. You seem to have three categories: the abnormal, those asleep and children. We would in general take “normal” examples if we are going to set a moral code. There seems to me to be a difference between morality and culpability. We say that murder is always wrong however if someone who is mentally sub-normal commits murder we take that into account when assessing his/her culpability.
I am not sure about your inclusion of people who are asleep. Are you saying that because they are not conscious that they have lost consiousness? That would tally with your weak definition. (I am using “weak” in the philosophical sense – it is not intended as an insult). But what odd conclusions one would come to if that is the case. Can you eat someone who is asleep because they are not conscious? (A silly question so please don’t answer it!)
As for children, we certainly include them in the moral sphere but recognise that while still growing up they need instruction and guidance. And so, again, we do not hold them fully culpable until we deem that by a certain age they should have arrived at a decent understanding of right and wrong. (Of course, they may not have done because of faulty upbringing or various other circumstances.) But this only serves to reduce culpability rather than remove them from the moral sphere.
No amount of instruction given to a sea lion brings it into the moral sphere. And so we do not hold them culpable as we do not consider them to be moral agents.
The issue about representing a sea lion in a court of law seems to me to rest on whether the sea lion is within the moral sphere and not on whether they are conscious or not. The only way it does is if you equate consciousness with morally aware.
As for rights and responsibilities, I will give that a go. If you say that a sea lion has rights which can be defended in a court of law does it not follow that the sea lion can be sued in a court of law? If I have rights which I expect society to defend (through the courts of law, ultimately) then I have a reciprocal duty to observe the rights of others. I am responsible for my actions and particularly those actions which violate the rights of others. If a sea lion has rights to what extent does it have an obligation to observe the rights of others?
June 19th, 2010 | 2:19 am
Simon: Thanks for your thoughtful and intelligent reply. I distinguish between two types of consciousness: 1)Primary, which is the most basic, the one that at least all mammals, including us, share, which is awareness of one’s environment, and the ability to experience pleasure and pain. 2) secondary consciousness, which is possessed, as far as the evidence shows, only by humans. Although, some humans, as I noted above,do not have all of what secondary consciousness gives us, the ability to reflect that we’re conscious, the ability to reason, including the ability to reason about moral manners.
The advantage that my standard, that primary consciousness should be the basis for a being having rights, is that it includes All humans, and all animals with primary consciousness. Unfortunately, if you base (as Wesley does) the inclusion into the rights community on the ability to morally reflect, you can only logically include those who can manifest secondary consciousness. Animals are excluded, but so are babies, and those humans unable to morally reflect.
Your assertion that those in the latter category are exempt, because they are “abnormal”, (e.g.,pychopaths), or need to grow, (children), doesn’t address the issue. It’s irrelevant. What’s relevant is that they’re groups of human beings, that, at the this time, do not conform to the criterion that Wesley (and apparently you) accept as the basis for having rights: the ability to reflect morally.
Now, you distinguish between animals, who will never be able to reflect morally, and children who will, eventually, when they grow up. Again, I’m afraid, this is irrelevant. We’re talking about their capacities NOW, not, at some future date. Also, what about terminal children, suffering from cancer, for example, who we know, will never grow up, and thereby get the ability to reason morally? They’re in the same category, in this context, as animals. So are pychopaths, who, according to the latest neurobiological evidence, will never get the ability to morally reflect as a normal human.
The problem here is coherence. Wesley, and you, and others, who accept the notion that only humans, BECAUSE they can reflect morally, and subsequently exercise proper moral agency, can have rights, is you cannot coherently state why those humans who cannot exercise those traits, should be given a pass.
What you and Wesley and others, who accept the “moral agency” criterion for rights, must do, is state why the exceptions for humans who cannot manifest the “moral agency” criterion. But you cannot. You come up with totally irrelevant factors, that I noted above, and you talk about our need to guide them, all true, but irrelevant as to why they should get a pass.
True, a sea lion,regardless of instruction, will never be able to exercise moral agency. No doubt. But, again, irrelevant. No child, who has terminal cancer, will be able to either. Sadly, regardless of instruction, no pychopath will be able to either.
regarding rights and responsibilities, NO, it does NOT follow that the sea lion, if it can sue in court, it can be sued. For basically the same reason that a child could not be held accountable for behavior, (due to lack of moral maturity), but could still sue others, or more precisely, have a lawyer sue, on behalf of the child, someone else, who IS morally mature, and has commited a wrong against the child.
June 19th, 2010 | 2:07 pm
Dear Bret
Many thanks for the comments – it may not be obvious but I am working overtime here!
In simple terms, the chink in your armour (and I wish to God I could find many more!) is that you are comparing a normal, mature adult sea lion with either an abnormal or sub-normal human in the case of someone with mental deficiency or an immature human in the case of a child.
In less simple terms I would need to talk about potentiality. All human beings have the potential for moral awareness even if a miracle would be required for that potential to be fully realised. No other creature has that potential – as you state yourself when referring to “secondary conciousness”.
So even if that potential will never be realised without a miracle of healing in both the case of a mentally sub-normal person or a child with a terminal illness that does not stop both the sub-normal person and the child being qualitatively different from anything else in creation.
And, as you quite rightly say, we need to build our morality on facts – on how things really are.
(As an aside, I don’t think you are right in your last paragraph. If a child has been left an estate and one of his/her agents commits a crime then the child can be sued. The award would be for damages rather than anything else. However, we would need to consult a lawyer about that and it is bad enough having a load of philosophy grads arguing without bringing the lawyers in as well! You’re not a lawyer, are you?)
June 19th, 2010 | 5:58 pm
Simon: Thanks for your reply.The abnormal, and subnormal humans, are still just that:humans. So, I’m comparing certian forms of humans with the sea lions. The argument is still valid.The fact is, these types of humans do NOT meet the criterion that you, and Wesley, and others have asserted is the basis for rights. I just don’t see how you can give these types of humans a pass, and not give animals(precisely, certain types of animals) a pass too. They both are only deficient in that one criterion. Logic simply demands that you cannot have it both ways.
Respectfully, I must say, it seems rather desperate to rely on a miracle, so the particular humans (e.g., babies, mentally ill) can possibly, one day, acquire the moral agency criterion that would allow them to not have to have a pass. This implicitly seems to mean that you accept that they cannot logically have rights in their current state. That’s a good sign, and logically it could be no other way. But when you start asserting that God will provide miracles, where do you stop? After all, God, being omnipotent, could do anything, including, change the animals that don’t have moral agency, and cause them as well to have moral agency! You might object that this is far fetched, to say the extreme very least, and I would agree, but who are we to restrict God? If he wants to save the humans without moral agency, why not the animals too?
You may be right about the children, that they can be sued. I’m not a lawyer. But, based on the developmental evidence, a child is incapable of being morally culpable, and therefore, should not be culpable or liable legally. If, frankly, stupid legislators vote in favor of laws, that allow children to be legally liable, they have no rational basis for doing so. Children simply, due to their immature frontal lobes, are incapable of proper moral reasoning, and therefore cannot be held accountable, morally, for their behavior.
June 20th, 2010 | 12:09 am
Dear Bret
I think we have probably come to the end of the road here – I’m sure I have! Simply repeating your previous assertions is not a development of the argument. If you “just don’t get it” then that is fair enough.
I wasn’t relying on a miracle but simply trying to explain something about potency as opposed to act. All human beings have this potential – that is what marks them out as qualitatively different. It is not a question of Wesley or me giving them a “pass” – they already possess the “pass”.
It has been challenging and fun. I hope that both sides have a greater understanding of the other’s position.
June 20th, 2010 | 5:52 pm
Simon: Thanks a lot for the oppurtunity to debate an important subject. I’ve enjoyed it too.
The problem is, vis a vis your claim that the “abnormal” human has the “potential” is, there’s simply no evidence that it’s ever happened. And, with a child, who’s terminal, there’s simply no potential, in this context, for them to actualize the moral agency, since they will not grow to be adults, sadly. but we still, rightly,give them rights. You simply have no basis for giving them rights, since your basis for rights is morally agency, which they do not possess. I have no problem giving them rights, since I believe rights are based on consciousness.
Also, we are talking about what the being in question is now, not at some future date.
And, it begs the question why moral agency should be the basis for rights. no one has provided non-arbitrary reasons for why this should be the basis, especially, when so many counterexamples can be provided (e.g., children, mentally handicapped, etc.). Also, if pychopaths are missing what give one moral agency, it’s unclear where the potential comes from.
I’m guessing that you’re relying on an aristotilian/thomistic conception of what constitutes the essence of the human person. As much as I like Aquinas, and respect him, (his summa theologiae,for example, is a delight), I’m unsure that his view is helpful here.
We are creatures who evolved (I believe that God directed the evolutionary process) meaning that we have more in common with other creatures, than less. But is that so bad?
i’ts not a matter of me “just not getting it”. I don’t think you’ve proved your case.
I believe all conscious beings have a “pass”. Why would God create (or allow the evolution of, or both) conscious creatures, just for us to exploit?
I’m happy to continue the debate, to clarify these issues, so that misunderstandings don’t arise (or continue!) but since you don’t, we won’t.
You are obviously well informed and intelligent. Moreover, you’re respectful, which is needed most of all in these debates. Take care.
June 21st, 2010 | 2:53 am
Dear Bret
The main reason I am afraid to venture any further is exactly because of the turn you have taken in your comments. The turn is quite acceptable and shows why discussions like this are so hard. The turn is that you have now linked your arguments to the rest of your “world view”. And that is as it should be – we all have a “world view” even if some can articulate it better than others. And each element of our world view has to fit in with all the other elements – otherwise we would change our world view. I think that is why some of our brothers and sisters can get a little heated at times – opposing arguments threaten our world view and that can be very unsettling indeed.
If I can just correct one point. I have never said that humans can exploit other creatures or the world resources. I have always said that we are meant to be the stewards of God’s creation – we are responsible for good stewardship of creation. Perhaps that is why “creation is groaning until the Sun of righteousness appears”! And note that I say that we are responsible because in my world view animals are not.
I also tried to explain that I do consider psychopaths and children to be within the compass of moral agency. I distinguished between the ability (or, better, the requirement) to act morally and the level of culpability if someone does not act morally. As adult, thinking, humans you and I would be rightly held fully accountable if we fail to act morally. A child or psychopath would not be held fully accountable – but they would still be judged against the same moral code. We do not say “they cannot act morally because they are not human” we say that they have acted immorally because they do not know better.
I was trying to think of a word picture to explain my use of “potentiality”. One that I came up with while walking my parents dog in the woods is that of the oak tree and the acorn. If we consider something I called “oak-tree-ness” then there are only two things that would fit into that category – the oak tree and the acorn. The oak tree is already an oak tree and so, in a sense, does not have the potential to be an oak tree any more – because it IS an oak tree. So, the only thing in all of creation that has the potential to become an oak tree is the acorn. Nothing else has that potential. This, of itself, separates it from the rest of creation. It has this unique property and because it has this unique property it is included in the category of “oak-tree-ness”. Even if it loses the ability to turn this potential into reality (because someone steps on it or it has been badly formed or whatever) it is still an acorn. And thus it is still included in the category of “oak-tree-ness”. If it stops being an acorn what does it become?
And now to your “turn” and my fear! Evolution. Quite rightly, your world view contains a strong belief in evolution and because of that you do not see such a gulf between one animal and another even if we are “rational animals” and they are not. My world view does not contain such a strong belief in evolution. Strong evolution naturally leads to the “weak” version of consciousness. A weak belief in evolution leads to a strong version of consiousness – that which is possessed only by human beings.
Perhaps a good time to pause and await the deluge!
June 21st, 2010 | 8:31 pm
Simon: I respect those (and you appear to belong to this group) who believe that humans should exercise proper dominion of the rest of creation. I just think that, based on the evidence of, at least mammals rich interior lives, (not as rich as ours, of course), we must do more than that.
How much more, is debatable, but, I don’t believe that we humans have anything to fear by giving (or recognizing?) the rights of other animals. After all, we’re in control of protecting them.
We both agree that the empirical evidence should control where this debate goes. clearly, those who support animal welfare (as opposed to animal rights) do so on the basis of the evidence that shows that animals can suffer. They’re in agreement with animal rightists on that. But those who support animal rights, such as myself, say that the animal welfarists, such as yourself, while well intentioned, and accepting the empirical evidence that indicate that animals feel, and such be therefore treated humanely, don’t go as far as the evidence indicates they should.
Since other animals possess consciousness, they should not just be killed humanely, they should not be killed. I presume that you base your animal welfare view on the fact that animals are conscoius? Otherwise, why treat them differently than a tree? So why not go the extra step, and say that they deserve to have the right not to be killed?
I understand your reservations regarding evolution. It has been used by others for great harm. But in my view, it’s totally congruent with belief in God, and Christianity. The fact that we’re related to all other species does NOT bring us down, it only brings them up, a bit, which isa good thing!
June 22nd, 2010 | 2:24 am
Dear Bret
Thanks for that. I was expecting a few less reasoned comments about evolution from others. Perhaps you and I are the only ones left here!
Perhaps I can ask a couple of questions rather than restate my position – which you know already.
Why do we have to GIVE them rights? (as opposed to them having rights by right, so to speak, or by nature) You have probably already answered that in part by using the word “recognising” but then why the question mark?
If we can give them (recognise their) rights why can we not give them (recognise their) responsibilities? (Even if you do not see an automatic connection between rights and responsibilities it is still a fair question for your position to have to answer)
June 22nd, 2010 | 11:46 am
“It is offensive to equate animals with black people. The argument on behalf of slavery was invidious and wrong because intrinsic equals were being treated as inferior. Animals are not our equals.”
You, sir, are exactly the person who would have argued for slavery. Every sentence you utter makes that clear. You are unable to rise above your rhetoric to recognize that, so you defensively argue on and on. But the fact remains: The same kind of groundless self-interest that leads you to argue against the rights of animals would have led you to argue against the rights of Black people. Yes, that may be offensive (it certainly offends me!), but it seems to be who you are. Sadly, it seems to be who a lot of people are.
Few of us are capable of feeling real empathy toward those who look different from us, even when the evidence is overwhelming that they can feel the same pains that we feel. Few of us show enough compassion, even to our “own kind” much less to those whom we perceive as Other. That’s just a fact of life. You can argue till you’re blue in the face, but it’s still who you are.
You do not care about facts: Not about which species you are discussing, and not about the science which has demonstrated over and over again that animals can think and feel just as we can. You do not care about mercy or compassion. You have edited those sentiments out of your own morality, and you admonish the rest of us to edit them out of ours. You do not recognize the major point of the New Testament, and you fail to recognize the need to show compassion toward other sentient beings. You have made all of this very clear.
The question is, should we listen to you? Or to our own hearts? I think you have made the answers to these questions clear as well.
Thank you, but I will listen to my own heart. Animals deserve to have the right not to be killed by people like you, for the kinds of silly, baseless reasons that you promote. Simple as that. No more need be said, but I know you will underline everything I am saying by driveling out some more words that just prove my point. Thanks for that, too.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 22nd, 2010 at 11:51 am
That is an insult, Anna. And it is wrong.
June 22nd, 2010 | 9:13 pm
Simon: I believe that rights are discovered, not, of course, in an empirical way, but through reasoned arguments, that often have a basis in empirical facts.
We both agree that animals (at least many) are conscious, and hoe we treat them can result in pain or pleasure, happiness and saddness for them. that’s why you, wesley and others support animal welfare. Your moral position,(animal welfare) is a conclusion based on the empirical facts, that many animals are conscious. My position is similar, in that the consciousness of many animals forms my basis for stating that they don’t just “deserve” welfare, they deserve rights. that means, the right to be not killed, and unharmed in other ways. This, I believe, is a natural extrapolation from the discovery that they’re conscious. So, it’s not an arbitrary “giving” of rights, but recognizing what they’ve always had, even if no one has recognized them before.
This is a kind of “quasi natural rights” position.”Responsibilities” cannot be recognized, because there’s nothing in these animals nature that would warrant that extrapolation.
I am a moral realist. What I mean by that is, morals are discovered, not invented by humans. I should not have used the question mark after “recognized”, but I was implying that it’s controversial, I should have clarified that. You, too, are very reasonable, and it’s great interacting with you on these matters.
June 23rd, 2010 | 5:19 am
Dear Bret
I remember when I started to do a Masters in Philosophy (which I did not finish, by the way) that I opted to write an essay on Truth. It came about because I had read some Simone Weil and one of my favourite quotes from her was “Christ does not mind if we prefer Truth to Him because before He was Christ He was Truth”. My argument was that Truth does not reside outside of human beings. That is, you can look at a bookcase and it either exists or it does not exist. You can’t say “That bookcase is either true or false”. I was talking with the professor in his study at the time and bookcases were much in evidence! He agreed and said that Quine had come to the same conclusion by saying that Truth is contained in sentences. Not wishing to disagree with Quine directly, I said that may be the case but in order for our sentences to contain Truth that Truth must have started within us in order for it to be transmitted by (or contained within) our sentences.
I think the same line of argument applies here. Morality is found in us. It is not that animals have rights because they cannot act morally (or immorally for that matter) – it is not in their nature so to do. It is in our nature to act morally (or immorally). And so your own position states that we have a responsibility to act morally towards animals. I agree with that although we might come to different conclusions about whether we are allowed to eat them or not!
And I am not sure that we should not act entirely empirically in this matter as in many others. Wittgenstien said that in doing philosophy we have to “LOOK”. I think our “reasoned arguments” need to be based on what we see. Or, at the very least, concur with the reality that we see around us. And what I see accords with what I read in Genesis. God created the world and man was the only part of creation made “in the image of God”. Similarly, we were the only creature that ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil – in other words we took upon ourselves the right (or ability) to decide what is right and what is wrong. Foolishly, of course, because we do not seem to be able to handle it! The Original Sin was taking upon ourselves the right to decide what is sinful or not.
[As an aside, this is why I could not continue with the Masters - I always wanted to bring God into it which did not work in a corridor of atheists who were steeped in the analytical tradition]
To return – that is why Wittgenstein said “For me, ethics is divine”. Following on from the eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil we went on to build the Tower of Babel and God acknowledged that if we were allowed to do this that we could reach up to heaven and become Gods. So he gave us different languages. Which is why philosophy is like chiselling granite – even if we both speak English we still tend to talk different languages!
The big question for my position is the best philosophical question of all: “So what?” So what if ethics resides in the human being? Why defend that position with such vigour that it seems to be a life and death struggle for you? Why is it a battle that you must win and in which you seem unable to give any quarter?
I think the answer to that is that by “raising the animals” into the moral sphere you at the same time raise them into the divine sphere. And that way lies panentheism. That is the ultimate danger. And I don’t agree with one of the commentators on the other blog who says that we should not extrapolate arguments beyond a simple assessment of whether an argument is right or wrong on its own merits. As Aquinas pointed out, the sure way of discovering if an argument is right or wrong is to extrapolate it to see where it ends up. If it ends up outside the box then it must be wrong somehow even if where it is wrong is not obvious when you look at the argument prior to the extrapolation.
Anyway, having become all religious it is probably a good time to pause and draw breath.
June 24th, 2010 | 1:52 am
Simon: I think that Augustine, when trying to provide an argument for the existence of God, stated that Truth always exists, regardless of whether there are humans around to experience the Truth. I’ve always found this to be intriging.
i’ve never had any sympathy for those who advocate moral or intellectual relativism. Clearly, the only coherent way to look at reality, is that truth exists, and we’re capable of discovering it.
I think that it’s very coherent to view humans as the pinnicle of creation, and also, that other animals have rights.
I hope you go back and get that Masters degree. you’re obviously very capable of it!
June 24th, 2010 | 4:28 am
Simon: I should have clarified my point above. I’m not saying that you’re advocating moral relativism, or epistomological relativism. Maybe you could clarify what you mean, exactly, when you state that truth exists just in us?
Also, I’m a little unclear how you derive the conclusion that taking animals into the moral sphere, raises them to the divine sphere, and therefore to panentheism. The latter is the notion that all of creation is an extention of God; I don’t see the connection. And, since you adopt the animal welfare position, are not animals already elevated into the moral sphere?
Thanks, I’m grateful for your intelligent comments.
June 24th, 2010 | 1:33 pm
Dear Bret
I think this is where the diffences in our positions become clearer. I would say that man is the only moral being in creation. I would also say that man is the only part of creation to carry the “divine spark” – that “God-likeness” that is ours because we were made in the image of God. These two things separate us from the rest of creation.
If we accept these as “givens” then I don’t see how your concept of a “continuum” can work. In what way does your continuum deal with moral agency? And in what way does your continuum deal with “God-likeness”?
June 26th, 2010 | 1:31 am
Simon: thanks again for the thoughtful comments. When we consider that human beings have only been on the earth, a reletively short time, and other animals, for example,dinasaurs,were on the earth, for hundreds of millions of years,it seems strange to me that God would only consider us included in the moral sphere.
Clearly, in Genesis, God stated that all of his creation is “Good”. Why would He make animals, capable of suffering, and then stipulate that they’re not a part of the moral sphere.
I do not think that the notion that we’re made in God’s image, and the view that conscious animals have rights, are mutually exclusive.
June 26th, 2010 | 10:56 am
Dear Bret
We are starting to go over the same ground as before.
And, to be honest, I don’t think you are quite addressing my question about your “continuum”.
When you suggest that animals should be included in the moral sphere are you saying that they can act morally towards other beings? (If they can’t, that does not preclude those who can act morally towards other beings from so acting.)
When you use the term “continuum”, what is it that is continuous within it?
June 28th, 2010 | 9:05 pm
Simon: Sorry I have not gotten back to you, yet, I wasn’t ignoring your comments! I enjoy interacting with you, since you’re cordial, and intelligent. Please refer to my latest comments on Wesley’s article concerning Whaling, and the need to ban it, which I think is also relevant (somewhat) to what you’re asking.
But since God created all, and chose to make us a part of the evolutionary process, it’s coherent, I believe, to consider them as part of the moral sphere.
June 29th, 2010 | 7:01 am
Dear Bret
Yes, I have seen the comments on evolution on other blog so perhaps we can carry on over there.
I just find evolution to be so lacking in explanatory power. I ask a series of questions and no-one can give a decent explanation based on Darwinism. We even get to the stage where there is no such thing as morality – it is just an epiphenomena on top of survival mechanisms. And “epiphenomena” are not in vogue.
I think it was Arthur Koestler who said “If any other scientific theory had as many holes as the Theory of Evolution it would be laughed out of court.” I agree but no-one seems willing to tackle evolution head on except a few fundamentalists who are portrayed as cranks.
See you on the other side.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 9:05 am
Simon Whitney: That’s because neo Darwinists use a biological theory of change and adaption in nature to try and explain human behavior. We have, in part, moved beyond natural selection because we are conscious and design, we act within and beyond naked nature with intentionality, unlike the flora and fauna. In other words, we act upon and are not just acted upon. Another example of human exceptionalism.
June 29th, 2010 | 2:03 pm
Dear Wesley
Many thanks for the comment. To be honest, I am not quite sure which point you are addressing. But I wasn’t sure what you meant in your first comments directed at what I had said and I didn’t want to seem to be ignoring you twice!
Obviously, Darwinists use a biological explanation for what they see. That is what I have been trying to question since I started.
Also, there are a couple of points you make that a Darwinist would not accept. Would not a sparrow building a nest be said to have “intentionality”? It intends to build a nest and it knows what it has to do to build it.
Again, would a Darwinist accept that human beings have somehow “moved beyond natural selection”? Teilhard de Chardin (the thinking Christian’s favourite Darwinist) was very much of the opinion that evolution would continue until we reached what he called the Omega Point. Why would evolution suddenly stop working?
I entirely agree that we need to find some way of getting the truth across. We might start by dropping the word “exceptionalism”. Our arguments might work better if we don’t antagonise the Darwinists by using a concept they simply react strongly against. There are plenty of examples of “exceptionalism” linked to a continuum. The President of the United States is “exceptional” because there is only one of them at any one time. But he/she is on a continuum with the rest of the American people.
We might just keep asking Darwinists to explain things that they see. The Theory of Evolution has virtually no explanatory power – as you have seen by the fact that questions put to them are never answered. So let’s keep asking the questions.
For example. if we accept that there is a “moral realm” that has produced in human beings a moral code included in which are the Ten Commandments where are the creatures who have produced a moral code which includes the Five Commandments? Where is the evidence of a “continuum” of moral agency?
July 2nd, 2010 | 4:01 am
Simon: I have to respectfully disagree with you, when you say that Darwinism has “virtually no explanatory power”. The entire modern field of biology rests on the soundness of evolution. To take evolution out of the biological picture, would leave biology hopelessly lost.
My guess is, that your big problem with it is its cruelty, and wastefullness. But, regardless of whether we accept evolution or not, the cruelty, and wastefullness is still there. Whether we like it or not. I must admit that I’m profoundly troubled by the suffering that humans, and other animals have to endure. It’s sad, and horribly depressing. But we must accept the truth.
Fortunately, evolution (Darwinism) has been shown to be completely compatable, and indeed, the best explanation for its (evolution’s) existenence is God’s existence. One possible reason for evolution, is it allows creatures full “freedom”.
July 4th, 2010 | 11:00 am
Dear Bret
I had been thinking: “It has been a good run, let’s leave it there” but I am afraid that is not in my nature!
I am not sure that the whole of modern biology rests on evolution. Biology is the study of living organisms as they are now – that can still be followed with or without evolution.
Nor am I particularly bothered about its cruelty – to live is to cry.
However, it is the other two comments that intrigue me. What makes you say that the best explanation for it’s existence is the existence of God?
The final point really surprised me – how can you say that a possible “reason” for evolution is that it allows creatures freedom? Even if evolution requires a reason (which seems rather contradictory to me) why is it freedom?
July 4th, 2010 | 8:01 pm
Simon: You always have something interesting and intelligent to bring!
One could certainly study biology without reference to evolution. However, it provides the best historical explanation for life’s emergence, and how/why life is related. However, evolution does not, provide an explanation for how/why life arose in the first place. It seems HIGHLY improbable that life arose purely by chance. Some of the rather desperate speculations made by those totally committed to naturalistic world, have been entertaining to study, but could hardly be taken seriously by mature adults.
Therefore, to explain how life arose, about 4 billion years ago, one must conclude, in my judgment, that God initiated life, and caused the evolutionary process to arise.
Some may argue that I’m invoking the so called “god of the gaps”, hypothesis, wherein one attempts to explain current mysteries in science, by asserting that God must have done it, which is bad for thinking generally, but, bad as well for theology, in that it leave this view (that God created the first life) vulnerable to future discoveries, of a naturalistic sort, that better explain it, than God, thereby further diminishing the intellectual reputation of religion, and theology.
Although this is a risk, I cannot conceive of any possible naturalistic explanation to overcome the statistical hurdles.It (the view that life arose purely naturalistically) is only plausible, I think, to those already, and zealously committed to an atheistic worldview.
Evolution is a contingent process. Meaning that, within certain constraints, it allows creatures to “go there own way”, as it were. They must make due with what nature has at hand. So it produces ingenuity, and creativity, to deal with the dangers and challenges, currently,in their environment, and the future. Freedom could arise, in order to flexibly adapt to the contingincies of life.
The only conceivable challange to evolutionary theory, has been Intelligent Design Theory. Although I respect what they’re doing, and I found Behe’s book “Darwin’s Black Box:The Biochemical challange to evolution”, to be well argued, and well written, (I have not read his latest book, “the edge of evolution”, yet), I think that scientists have provided cogent explanations for his “irreducible complexity” notion. But to believe this, as Edward Oaks,S.J., and others, have pointed out, is to see God as a “micromanaging designer”, which is problematic theologically.
July 19th, 2010 | 5:23 am
Radical Animal Rights: A Sea Lion Sues » Secondhand Smoke | A ……
I found your entry interesting do I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)…
August 3rd, 2010 | 4:02 pm
A Few Good Men Are Fighting Back: Bruce Babbitt and the Environmental Movement Part II…
The Moral Liberal Lookin’ at ya…
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact