I saw True Grit over the holiday, and enjoyed it thoroughly. (In the original movie, John Wayne stole the film. In the new version, the girl who hires the marshal to capture–or better yet, kill–her father’s murderer eats the scenery; a true tour de force by newcomer Hailee Steinfield.) It’s not as much fun as the John Wayne version, but is in some ways a better movie precisely because it is darker and deeper.
But being me, I couldn’t escape a human exceptionalism angle that leaped off the screen–although I am sure it was not intended by the movie makers (or novelist, upon which the movie is based). There is a scene–I will not state the context so as to not spoil the movie’s enjoyment–in which a horse is ridden to death in an attempt to get a character to a doctor to save the character’s life. It is an emotional moment in the movie–evoking empathy for the horse that is unique to our species (I had tears in my eyes)–but it got me thinking: If animals are truly our equals, the characters had no business sacrificing the horse to save the human.
So those who think animals deserve equal consideration, what say you? This is not an unthinkable scenario for contemplation. It has been done in real life, I am sure. And if sacrificing the horse was ethical–and I would say it was the morally required, if painful, choice–doesn’t that demonstrate that human beings really do have greater value?
January 4th, 2011 | 2:19 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys. Vince Humphreys said: SHS: Is It Ethical To Ride a Horse to Death to Save a Human Life? http://bit.ly/ehjzwm #tcot [...]
January 4th, 2011 | 3:14 pm
You are an idiot. I can’t believe this is actually a post. “Human exceptionalism”? Really?
When you can keep all animals from killing and eating other animals, then you can judge humanity. Of course at that point, you will have murdered all carnivore species on the planet by slow and horrible starvation.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 4th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
If I’m such an idiot, how come you missed the obvious point of the post, Yo?
January 4th, 2011 | 4:00 pm
This has been done in real life.
In 1925 there was a diphtheria outbreak in Alaska and they had to use sled dogs to get the antitoxin from Willow to Nome. Gunnar Kassen showed up in the nick of time, with Balto as the lead dog. And then there was Togo, the lead dog for the most difficult stretch of the trek. Several of the dogs’ lungs burst and they died from all the mushing.
We need not turn to the trite entertainment of the masses to draw lessons readily witnessed in reality.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 4th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Don’t be a snob, David.
January 4th, 2011 | 5:14 pm
The horse consented to be ridden to death. That’s what all horses do, get ridden to death. It’s much more common for horses, noble creatures that they are, to do that than a man, especially today. Maybe in the Coast Guard there are men that give their lives to save other people, but most people wouldn’t do that.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 4th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
Consented? No. Not capable. The horse was trained and forced. Wonderful animals. But it is called breaking them for a reason.
January 4th, 2011 | 5:30 pm
Yo – Wesley believes that while humans have a responsibility to act in a humane way toward animals, animals aren’t “exceptional” the way humans are.
I think that it’s a sad necessity sometimes, but animals have to be treated as well as possible. Since the doctor couldn’t be reached any other way, the animal suffered valiantly and should be remembered. Suffering can always have meaning, even animal suffering.
January 4th, 2011 | 6:25 pm
Let me try a slightly different “spin” on this: suppose the only way to save your mother, or wife/husband, is to use a human stranger, would it be moral to let your mother die, and not use the stranger?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 4th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Bret: Absolutely! If I were to drive a stranger to death to save my wife, not only would it be immoral, she would kill me if I did. I might want to do that emotionally, but I would not have the right. Second, a horse is not morally equivalent to any human.
So, Bret: What about that horse?
January 4th, 2011 | 6:59 pm
Yes, I agree with WJS on this point. The horse had no choice in the matter. To answer the question, Yes – but I also agree on this point with Tabs. It would be sad.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 4th, 2011 at 7:04 pm
49erDweet: Indeed. As I wrote, I had tears in my eyes.
January 4th, 2011 | 7:34 pm
Being a Genesis 1:28 sorta guy (I know I am inviting trouble saying so, but, so what?), “exceptionalism” for those created in the Image of the Lord is what it is.
A Christian worldview permits nothing less. I understand some might not like that, but I make no apologies on that count.
I am also a proto-evangelicum (Genesis 3:15) sorta guy . . . that there is redemption for mankind (note–redemption is God’s FIRST reaction to sin!). God Himself, in the Second Person of the Trinity, would take on flesh and dwell among us and fulfill every promise of the sacrificial lambs throughout the OT.
It happened. Even an unbelieving world just decorated itself and celebrated Christmas. :-)
Christ sacrificed Himself to undo the cosmic damage done in the fall. It is a supreme mystery and the superficial arguments against it (rational, don’t you know?), belong to those who frankly, don’t believe. Those who do and follow Him have done the same (martyrdom is any sacrifice, up to and including death).
BTW, μάρτυρος (sacrifice) actually means witness in the Greek.
Man will do the same for one another (sans any mental or spiritual deficiencies beyond the ordinary).
Man will even sacrifice himself for animals–that has happened countless times (remember Jesus’ little chat about rescuing an animal in the ditch on the Sabbath?)
Animals, sensing their place in creation, will either avoid man in fear, or follow the pattern–especially the domesticated animals.
A horse broken, a dog trained, do not merely react from instinct (Wes, I break with you here just a tad). There is within them and other animals a native, “part of creation” (however they understand) (beyond ours) understanding of the world. As Christ was our sacrifice, and man would sacrifice for Christ and one another, so too, the animal world (part of that “all creation to be redeemed”), understand sacrifice and redemption, which also makes me a Romans 8:18-25 sorta guy (set amidst one of the most interesting chapters in all of Scripture).
Which means, the horse did what a horse understands in its role within creation—serve the man who is the Image of God, as Man serves God. The film director included it like he included breathing, whether he knew it or not. He was breathing.
Creation, and creatures, however, will never welsh on their part of the deal. They will serve man even if the man does not serve God.
Yeah, Tabs . . . horses, like dawgs, will be in heaven, too. :-)
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 4th, 2011 at 7:36 pm
jb: Well, when a horse is broken or a dog trained, they don’t act from instinct, but often contra to it from our programming of their behavior.
January 4th, 2011 | 8:01 pm
Wes–
Not to make an argument where none probably exists . . .
I believe, as I stated using Romans 8 specifically, that Creation has its own relationship with the Creator, one probably not evident to us (man) in programming or training animals. Our exceptionalism is clearly the “image of God” and the sentience factor, but I, speaking for myself, will be very careful before I claim to understand (despite all my theological education), that I understand God’s relationship in full with the REST of creation.
To do so, as I see it, is presumptuous at best.
That was Lewis’ essential point at many junctures in his writings.
We’re on the same page, though.
My Dawgs, the Cocker, Milo, and my Toy Pug Conan the Barbarian, told me to tell you so.
jb
January 4th, 2011 | 8:04 pm
Wesley: You hit the issue right on the head: you may want to (indeed there might be something wrong with you if you didn’t want to help your wife, in this way) emotionally, but you recognize, on an intellectual level, that every human has a right to life. And one could not justify, using moral reasoning, that your wife, for example, has more moral worth than any other human.
Similarly, one may wish to use an animal, to help a human, but based on the same moral reasoning that would prohibit you from using a human stranger to help your wife, you could not be permitted to use an animal to help a human. One may be (and indeed one would normally be emotionally predisposed to want to use the animal to help the human, just as one would be emotionally predisposed to use a stranger, to help a close loved one), emotionally inclined to use the animal to save the human, but one could not use proper moral reasoning to justify using the animal to help the human.
Considering, Wesley, that you support using reasoning, as opposed to mere emotion, to support moral choices, one would think you would support the animal.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 4th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
No, because the animal has less value than the human, Bret. The human example you gave has an equal being used. The horse example has an unequal being used. Huge difference. So, you choose the horse?
January 4th, 2011 | 8:11 pm
I’d even scramble a human embryo to save an adult or child.
Therefore, does that not demonstrate adults and children really do have greater value than the ball of cells we call an embryo?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 4th, 2011 at 8:14 pm
To you, David. I know people who would refuse treatments–one man with progressive MS–because of the sanctity of human life.
January 4th, 2011 | 8:14 pm
comments are acting goofy
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 4th, 2011 at 8:26 pm
jb: Sometimes, they sneak into spam. I try and catch them, but miss some I think.
January 4th, 2011 | 8:15 pm
Wes–
Try this again . . .
Not to make an argument where none probably exists . . .
I believe, as I stated using Romans 8 specifically, that Creation has its own relationship with the Creator, one probably not evident to us (man) in programming or training animals. Our exceptionalism is clearly the “image of God” and the sentience factor, but I, speaking for myself, will be very careful before I claim to understand (despite all my theological education), that I understand God’s relationship in full with the REST of creation.
To do so, as I see it, is presumptuous at best.
That was Lewis’ essential point at many junctures in his writings.
We’re on the same page, though.
My Dawgs, the Cocker, Milo, and my Toy Pug Conan the Barbarian, told me to tell you so.
jb
January 4th, 2011 | 8:21 pm
I don’t know what happened to my follow-up (it’s probably floating out around the planet Uranus fighting off Klingons) . . .
David’s concerption (pardon the expression) of life, is shallow. He assumes the right and authority to determine “this human being” or “that human being.”
That choice was never given to us.
January 4th, 2011 | 8:26 pm
Wesley: I could easily turn it on you, and say, so, you would coose a stranger, over your own wife, or mother, or sister?
Of course that would be unfair. There’s a moral principle, that, all humans are of equal moral worth, and as horrific as it is, that one’s wife, or sister, or brother, needs saving, and you, and I would do everything we could to save her/him, we would stop short of taking a healthy human stranger, and using him, taking his/her life to save the lives of our loved ones.
Similarly, the moral principle that, prevents one from using sentient creatures, lives, for our benefit, prevents us from taking the lives of healthy animals for the benefit of humans. Certainly, I would do everything I can, to help humans in need, but I would stop short of using the lives of healthy sentient animals for this.
It’s based on sound moral reasoning.
Wesley, you seem to be trying to use emotion, to support your “Human Exceptionalism” view here. Isn’t that what you accuse some animal rights groups, of indulging in?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 4th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
Bret: If we have to give animals “equal consideration,” we have to define what that means. In this case, a character is in danger of death. The only way to save the character is to ride the horse to death. If an animal is to be given equal consideration, this was an immoral act that should have been a severe crime. It’s not emotional. It’s philosophical. The horse has less value, so the right choice was made. If the horse is equal, the wrong choice was made, indeed, a monstrous choice.
January 4th, 2011 | 8:29 pm
It showed up, finally :-)
January 4th, 2011 | 8:40 pm
Wesley, I believe that all sentient life deserves equal consideration. Proper moral reasoning, means taking the argument(s) to their logical conclusion, regardless of how distasteful you may find it.
Of course, there’s a lot of aspects missing here. Did the person KNOW that riding the horse would cause or contribute to its death? Did the horse seem to enjoy riding prior to this (hypothetical) event? That is, if the “owner” treated the horse well, and ther horse never seemed to dislike being ridden, the owner may have felt, in this dire situation, that it was his only choice. That wouldn’t be “monstrous”.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 4th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
Bret: Well, it was a scene in a movie. But the horse tried to stop because it was exhausted and was kicked into running on despite being near collapse. It eventually goes down and is shot to put it out of its misery. The character didn’t think about the horse when starting the ride, but the human being to be saved.
January 4th, 2011 | 8:47 pm
Welpers. guess I blew it big time.
Wes . . . one needs not engage skeptics in their argumentation. Every time His adversaries tried, Jesus turned their words against them. My fave is when the IRS agents showed up (yeah, bit of a paraphrase).
Scripture is the authority. Even the best theological apologists who have ever lived, have (and had to) revert to Scripture.
“The Lord said . . .”
That is enough. Make the point, show the ultimate rationality, and let whomever decide for themselves. Jesus did precisely that with the rich young ruler. He did not call the young man back for further discussion. He let him go.
You and I can squabble about whether the horse or dog was reacting to training or an inate “belonging to creation,” but when the elevator to heaven arrives on high, we’ll pet the dog and give the horse an apple.
January 4th, 2011 | 8:58 pm
Wesley: I don’t think that there’s anything inherently wrong with using animals to help us, as long as their well being is given every reasonable consideration. If there’sa any evidence, that the using of the animal in question, could harm the animal, or if there’s any evidence that the animal wishes to not be used, then the animal should not be used.
But it’s a different question, when one considers the moral culpability, or lack thereof, of the cowboy. Was he so focused on helping the person, that he was incapable, due to stress, to consider, rationally the well being of the horse? If not, his behavior could not be considered “monstrous”, from the animal rights perspective. Intent, the emotional stress, the previous learning of the cowboy (e.g., perhaps he was taught that horses could be sacrificed in such a way), that rendered him not blameworthy, etc. Wesley, you seem to be focused on the mere act, as opposed to the intent, and mental states of the cowboy, which seems odd to me, considering your rejection of consequentialism, as a moral theory.
January 4th, 2011 | 9:14 pm
Bret . . .
Do you eat meat?
January 4th, 2011 | 9:47 pm
I’m a Rambo speciesist, but I have to admit that the scenario of riding a horse to death troubles me. (I’m also a horse lover.) The problem isn’t killing the horse, to my mind. I would have no problem with their getting a gun out and _shooting_ the horse if that would save a human being’s life. What worries me is cruelty. Is it not inhumane to ride the horse to death? That’s what makes me worry a bit about the ethical issue.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 4th, 2011 at 9:53 pm
Lydia: The scenario is a person has a life threatening condition. The only way to save the person is to ride the horse into the ground because walking would take too long to get to the doctor.
January 4th, 2011 | 10:03 pm
Lydia:
The only “ethics” to which Wes has referred:
Horse, or
Human being. Make the call.
January 5th, 2011 | 11:00 am
jb: I don’t eat any beef or pork. I occasionally eat tuna, chicken and turkey. The reason, being, I have no doubt that pigs, cows, and all other mammals are conscious, and therefore deserve equal moral consideration. I’m highly dubious, about birds and fish, as anti-common sense as this sounds. Why? because the latest neurobiological evidence, that i’ve seen, doesn’t convince me that all birds and fish are conscious. All mammals are, undoubtably conscious, and some birds are (such as ravens) but if subsequent evidence convinces me that all birds, and all fish, are conscious, then I will become completely vegetarian.
January 5th, 2011 | 12:59 pm
Bret: that means you’re giving the “right to life” based on consciousness. If then you classify some animals to have consciousness, the “right to life” runs massive inflation.
Does this now mean that unconscious humans have no right to life?
January 5th, 2011 | 1:47 pm
Markus, no, it does not. The fact that unconscious humans, such as fetuses, WILL be conscious, if left unharmed, is sufficient to grant them the right to life.
January 5th, 2011 | 2:04 pm
Bret:
All of that is your call–for you. I have to wonder why, since science has neither confirmed nor denied “consciousness” in fish and birds, you would not follow your philosophy that much further, for consistency’s sake, and to be ahead of the curve should science ultimately discover fish and birds are conscious.
Again, your call–for you.
Me? My worldview is ultimately shaped by the Scriptures, and Acts 11:1-10 pretty much rules out any moral qualms or indigestion about my dinner menu.
That is my call.
As to the original question posed by Wes . . . the death of the horse would be regrettable in any case, but the horse was not created in God’s image.
Man was.
January 5th, 2011 | 2:44 pm
jb: thanks, I respect your outlook, and you make a good point. I’ve tried to phase out my meat eating, more and more. I do feel guilty about eating chicken and turkey, especially, because I do wonder how aware they really are. We cannot know, with certainty, that they’re not conscious, and part of me feels rather absurd, saying they aren’t conscious. Perhaps someone could convince me, that they are. Right now, I’m agnostic.
I think we can also believe that animals are created in God’s image. They’re reflections of His creative power.
January 5th, 2011 | 4:00 pm
Well, yes, I know that’s the scenario. But what about this one: Ride the horse until it’s very tired but not dead. Walk with the horse for a while, then ride again, etc. Will this get there in time? Maybe so, maybe not. But you’re certainly not going to have some top-notch knowledge that it definitely won’t work.
And if you kill the horse and you haven’t made it to the doctor yet (or whatever) you’re going to have to walk part of the way _anyway_, which you could also have done by getting down and giving the horse a break, sending it away, or whatever. Nor can you know that you’re definitely going to kill the horse close enough to your goal for it to be worth it in terms of speed. So riding the horse to death may not even be rational. The horse is valuable even as a form of transportation and even from the perspective of the goal of helping the sick human being.
January 5th, 2011 | 5:55 pm
Bret, bad news. Grew up around Turkey farms. They are very aware.
Btw, I’m on jb’s side on this, for the same reason.
January 6th, 2011 | 12:04 am
I believe that the fact that the question can be asked and debated this thoroughly demonstrates the gray area within it, and that sane, compassionate people can still disagree.
p.s. — I am a vegetarian not mainly because of the SUFFERING of animals — indeed, that only makes it worse — but because I believe life has a VALUE. Didn’t need a book to tell me that, by the way (jb). My ethos on this indeed extends to human beings’ lives, and rebuts the argument that it’s okay to destroy human embryos because they’re not “conscious.”
January 6th, 2011 | 3:03 am
49erDweet: If you’re right, then, we all should be vegetarians. Welcome to the Animal Rights, position, 49erDweet! I have no problem, with changing, if the change constitiues a moral improvement.
Obviously, no one doubts that turkeys, and chicken, from a common sense standpoint, appear aware. My concern, is that we properly distinguish, what appears to be awareness, but in reality, can be better explained as reflexes. Do chicken, and turkeys, etc., have sufficient neural apparati to be conscious? I don’t know, I think it’s something we better get right, though. If they are aware, then, it’s immoral to eat them.
Certainly, bugs, appear “aware”, but their behavior is best explained as reflexes. Are birds in this same category? I don’t know, I’m willing to be convinced.
January 6th, 2011 | 3:14 am
bmmg39: I respect your position, and I think you’re right, that sane, compassionate people can disagree, on this issue.
I’m unclear, however, how being a vegetarian would make animal suffering worse. What do you mean?
My basis, for believing that a being has rights, is consciousness, or the potential for consciousness. That is, the human embryo, for example (and later, the fetus) is a human being, that WILL be conscious, if left unharmed. To kill the embryo, and fetus, would be to deprive her/him of a future consciousness, which is ensured, if left unharmed, and given proper care. Similarly, when one is asleep, one is not conscious. but one will be conscious, and to kill the sleeping person, because he’s unconscious, is absurd, because he will be, if left unharmed. A comotose person, may become conscious again. Consider how little we know, about the brain, There are cases, where a person, is diagnosed as being in an irreversible coma, only to wake up, years later!
January 6th, 2011 | 3:15 am
BM–
Dude, vegetarianism is YOUR call. As far as the bit of a shot about the “Book”—go argue with God on that one. It’s HIS book, not mine. Putting a shot on me just pings off into space.
:-)
It is good your ethos extends to the unborn, however, there are some truths that simply cannot be avoided. You have your broccoli and I my steak, and we can celebrate together the humanity of us all as we try, hit or miss, to reflect the image of the Blessed One Who created us all.
Pax Domine
January 6th, 2011 | 3:21 am
bmmg39: also, I certainly respect your position, that all life should be respected, but, from my stanpoint, unless one provides some criterion, such as consciousness, or the potential for consciousness, one is left with just respecting all life, which could translate into, all bugs, all bacteria, protozoa, etc., how do you prevent yourself, from falling into this potential trap (I’m crtain you don’t respect the lives of the creatures, I just mentioned) ?
January 6th, 2011 | 9:05 am
Yes, it’s OK to ride a horse to death to save a human life. Call me a speciesist. If grizzly bears could to be bothered to consider the question, they would likely conclude it’s OK to kill a human in the vicinity of cubs.
I’m an omnivore, as were my ancestors. I don’t believe in discriminating against life forms. We kill carrots, potatoes, onions, rhubarb, beets, turnips, parsnips, garlic, peanuts etc. Why not kill fish, cows and crickets for nourishment? Is it OK to eat the fruits of plants without killing the plant? Eating nuts, apples, oranges, tomatoes, peas, corn, beans, etc may be justifiable, like eating chicken eggs. On the other hand would we eat a cow one leg at a time? Here’s a description for harvesting broccoli: “use a sharp knife and cut the head of the broccoli off the plant. You should cut the broccoli head stem 5 inches or more below the head. Cut the head off with a swift cut.” The broccoli plant (or celery, asparagus, lettuce) continues to grow after being mutilated! Sick.
January 6th, 2011 | 11:30 am
If one gives the right to life on the basis of consciousness, psychological faculties or suffering, he is giving the objects (birds, humans, horses, …) extrinsic value by a chosen attribute.
If one wants to argue that given objects have objective, intrinsic value, he cannot appeal to some attribute he has himself chosen. Therefore, I believe jb has the best foundation for objective moral values. All human beings are uniquely important, because they are made in the image of God. The buck stops there.
January 6th, 2011 | 11:36 am
Bret: “I’m unclear, however, how being a vegetarian would make animal suffering worse.”
Perhaps I was not clear. I do not want to cause the death of an animal, even if the animal does not suffer during or before being killed. IF the animal suffers, then that only makes things worse, but that isn’t my chief reason for being a vegetarian — i.e. I’m not in the Peter Singer “just reduce all suffering” camp. (I’m not in the Peter Singer camp on just about anything…) There are those who extend their respect for life to creatures not in the animal kingdom — people who are fruitarians and only eat what falls to earth naturally — but I’m not quite there, though I do think flowers are perfectly fine where they are, attached to the dirt and alive, and that it’s silly to clip them so we can carry them around for a few days.
As for animals, it has always bothered me how we treat horses so much better than we treat cows, treat cats so much better than lambs, and dogs so much better than pigs, and so forth, in spite of their physiological similarities. I’m striving for more consistency than that.
jb: “As far as the bit of a shot about the ‘Book’—go argue with God on that one. It’s HIS book, not mine.”
We could derail the thread with a tangent about a book written by human beings, and the many things seemingly endorsed by it that society would find somewhat less than kosher, but that would be disrespectful to Mr. Smith’s site.
January 6th, 2011 | 4:39 pm
Markus: the value I’ve “chosen”, is intrinsic to the creature, in question. that is, without it, namely consciousness, or the potential for consciousness, the creture in question, would not be that creature. It’s essentially interwoven into its very being.
The attribute of consciousness, or the potential for consciousness, is the criterion, most relevant, to the moral essence of a being. That is, without consciousness, the being in question, would experience nothing, literally. it would be essentially the same as any other inanimate object: both the unconscious creature, and a rock, say, would both be equally unaware. Why don’t you consider a rock as having any moral status? Because it’s completely unconscious, whether you put it in those words, or not, that’s what it boils down to. So, if you were to magically give a rock consciousness, where it could at least experience pleasure or pain, it would then have a morally relevant status, right?
all of the above, is entirely congruent with belief in God. I believe in God, and everything I mentioned above.
January 6th, 2011 | 4:42 pm
bmmg39: thanks, for your clarification. You seem like a kind, courageous person. It sounds to me that you’re doing a great job, at it.
January 6th, 2011 | 8:17 pm
BMMG
You were the first wheel off the tracks with your crack about not needing a book, so don’t duck and weave and blame me. You brought it up Dude, and as a shot. I responded.
You doubled down on your response to that–a further shot on my reliance upon Scripture, then you tried ducking behind Wes’ skirts.
Kinda juvenile.
January 7th, 2011 | 1:18 am
jb, I’m not the one who brought up the Bible and used it as a be-all-and-end-all final word on the subject. I also notice you chose the words in Acts and not the words in Romans.
January 7th, 2011 | 5:03 pm
Bret: Different objects have different attributes. A green ball has an extrinsic attribute by being green: this is applied by painting it. It also has an extrinsic attribute: it is round. Human beings have attributes: they have consciousness, or the ability to develop consciousness. You can list many different attributes, and these can be by themselves intrinsic, but by themselves have no moral dimension.
“The attribute of consciousness, or the potential for consciousness, is the criterion, most relevant, to the moral essence of a being.”
Now you have seen the classification of different objects and their attributes, and “want/choose” that having a consciousness is “the” attribute which gives these objects moral worth. Sorry, but starting from a blank slate, this seems a bit arbitrary.
“That is, without consciousness, the being in question, would experience nothing, literally.”
Why should the possibility to experience something to guide us? If we had chosen the possibility to experience pain as “the moral axiom”, then human beings with a rare disease which disables their ability to feel pain removes them from the “right to life” group.
Another point: if a human being will be permanently deprived of your selected attribute, then logically they do not have any right to life. This is the basic hurdle with my ethical intuition when I see these “social constructions” for ethics. What is socially constructed can be socially destroyed.
If, however, human worth is given outside of humanity, then it cannot be taken away by other human beings. I know I’m pressing you a bit hard, but these are hard questions.
January 8th, 2011 | 4:14 am
Murkus, these are really good questions, I enjoy discussing them, with you.
True, different objects have different attributes, but we should look for the essential attribute, that entails any “object”, to possess moral worth. Notice, that we don’t consider any object to have moral worth, unless it’s conscious itself, or is the possession of some conscious being. A chair, has no moral worth, intrinsically. But it could have moral worth, if it provides some use for a conscious being. so, all “nonconscious objects”, have no intrinsic moral worth, any “worth”, is derived from their use by conscious beings, whether god, human, animal.
No one say a chair, or a book, or a ball, or a bed, has moral worth. Let’s say, through some miracle, these objects develpoed the capacity to feel. Most people, I would argue, you included, would now say these objects have moral worth. And what could it be, the essential trait that gave them moral worth, if it wasn’t their miraculous conciousness?
Even the most anti-animal rights people believe, or at least claim, that animals have some moral worth, in the form of deserving to be free of torture, as long as human considerations take presidence. But, no one, and i mean no one, claims that chairs, books, tables,etc. deserves any kind of moral consideration, or has any moral worth. why? Because they’re missing that essential attribute, consciousness.
A seen, wherever consciousness goes, moral concerns are closely there. If there are conscious beings, there’s moral worth attached. This is a deduction, based on the facts, it’s not a social construction. The latter, is the view, derived from postmodernist philosophy, that all knowledge, and moral claims, were merely invented by humans, perhaps to better work through our social lives. This is utter nonsense.
I would disagree, with you, that the rare person, who is incapable of feeling pain, would, based on my criterion of consciousness as essential for morality, be not part of the moral sphere. No, this people are still conscious, can still experience greater or lesser happiness. Certainly, how they’re treated could contribute to their greater, or lesser happiness, and success in life.
I agree, with you, that problems arise, with so-called “permenant” unconscious people, that is, those in irreversible comas. But, we don’t really understand the brain, fully. As a result, when a neurologist prognosticates that, a person, in a coma will “never” regain consciousness, he doesn’t really know this. This is not merely theoretical: there are actual cases, of people, reandered permanantly,irreversibly, unconscious, only to “wake up”, years later! If we “pulled the plug”, as it were, on these people, we would never know this.
But, what if, the person REALLY is in an irreversible coma, and our neuroscientific knowledge, is advanced enough to allow us to conclude this, it might be legitimate to cease care. I feel quite uneasy, about this, but I also don’t think caring for someone who will NEVER be conscious again, makes a lot of sense either.
January 9th, 2011 | 10:14 am
I believe that having consciousness is necessary but not sufficient property for an object for having objective moral worth. So we can say that “if an object is not conscious, then it has no moral worth” “if an object has moral worth, then it is conscious”. But I disagree with the statement “if the object is conscious, it has moral worth”.
Now, in your mindgame “miracle” which would bring a chair or a rock to life and they would have the ability to feel, they would not have objective moral worth.
“Even the most anti-animal rights people believe, or at least claim, that animals have some moral worth, in the form of deserving to be free of torture, as long as human considerations take presidence.”
Animals have just as much rights as humans want to give them. Under Judeo-Christian doctrine, God put man as a steward of the rest of the creation. He is free to enjoy its fruit (so killing animals & eating meat is acceptable), and tend to it with care (because it’s God creation, not yours). We feel strongly by intuition that cruelty is evil, so torturing animals should be avoided. Cruelty with animals can progress to even worse acts.
“A seen, wherever consciousness goes, moral concerns are closely there. If there are conscious beings, there’s moral worth attached. This is a deduction, based on the facts, it’s not a social construction.”
You observe a society around you which functions according to some beliefs of right and wrong, and then conclude that consciousness is always in connection with moral considerations. Fine, but you’re arguing from present conditions for justifying your beliefs. In a different time and place, society has been very different.
One of the points on my previous was that I abhor “social constructs” of ethics, because by definition they are simply a human contract about the value of different objects. But this by no means implies that this is objectively true!
What is socially constructed can be socially destroyed.
You’re right to see the problems with post-modern approach to ethics, it leads to moral anti-realism (maybe morals exists but we cannot know anything about them). If you want to build objective morals, don’t go there.
“Permanent coma patients” mindgame is complicated and I have no knowledge of neuroscience. I just have an inclination to err on the side of life when human beings are in question. Being created in the image of God doesn’t wear off, even when in deep coma.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact