A book review in the Wall Street Journal of a new book called The Moral Lives of Animals (by Dale Peterson) highlights the ongoing threat to human exeptionalism posed by those who are working to erase the moral boundaries between us and fauna. The reviewer, Stephen Budiansky (The Truth About Dogs), first discusses the rampant anthropmorphism among many authors who seek to demonstrate that animals have moral lives in the human sense of the term. (Jane Goodall has admitted, nay bragged, about her blatant use of the tool to “humanize” chimps, as I discussed in A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy). Apparently Peterson doesn’t immerse himself as fully in this warm bath of projection as do other human anti-exceptionalists. From the review:
The deeper problem, as Mr. Peterson more frankly acknowledges, is that it is the height of anthropomorphic absurdity to project human values and behaviors onto other species—and then to judge them by their similarity to us: “It’s like dressing elephants in tutus,” he writes. Nor is Mr. Peterson so enamored of the natural world that he is blind to the very disturbing things that animals can do. Along with a lot of too-familiar accounts of sexy bonobos, empathetic elephants and cooperative hyenas, he offers less often heard tales of the ugly truths that reign in the animal world. These include brutal infanticide in lions and horrific violence and cannibalism among chimpanzees. In one famous case, observed by Jane Goodall, a chimpanzee named Passion repeatedly kidnapped the babies of other mothers and, with the help of her own children, consumed them.
In humans, such behavior would be monstrous, psychopathological, evil! In animals, it is merely species-specific behavior. That’s a huge and morally relevant difference between us and all animals.
If Peterson can’t elevate animals to human moral attributes and capacities, apparently the author instead tries to diminish human exceptionalism, a concept he calls “Darwinian narcissism:”
Mr. Peterson, who was Ms. Goodall’s authorized biographer, nonetheless makes clear at the outset that he very much shares the fundamental ambition of the animal-rights movement to puncture the claim of human exceptionalism—the “error,” he states, of believing that humans have a unique status in nature or “are disconnected from the limits, systems, structures, and truths of the rest of the natural world.”
But of course, that is not what human exceptionalism claims. We are not disconnected, but neither are we completely limited. Humans alone can bend nature, at least to some degree, to our wills–with very positive (and some negative) consequences for our species. But back to the review:
Recognizing the difficulty of boosting animals, his approach is instead to deflate humans: in particular, to suggest that there is much less to even so vaunted a human trait as morality than we like to believe. Rather than a sophisticated system of language-based laws, philosophical arguments and abstract values that sets mankind apart, morality is, in his view, a set of largely primitive psycho logical instincts. This is a definition undemanding and broad enough to encompass much of the animal world, which is precisely his point.
A sense of fairness and reciprocity, for example, does not depend on formal rules or any “complicated intellectual” processes, he writes, just a gut check: Our sense of justice is really nothing but a “quick emotional” assessment. Empathy does not require a mind capable of imagining the feelings and thoughts of another mind, but arises from “mirror neurons” that are automatically triggered when an animal witnesses the actions of others, generating the same sensations experienced when it performs those same actions itself. In Mr. Peterson’s view, human philosophizing about morality is little more than a smokescreen that obscures an instinctual and primitive essence.
But this is just wishful thinking (my term) on Peterson’s part. As Budiansky correctly notes, our morality involves far mere than biological interactions:
…the moral world of humans, to even the most casually reflective observer, reaches far beyond such primal urges. Humans of the 21st century, after all, have exactly the same instinctual emotional urges that humans of the 18th century did. Yet because of language, argument and an ability to weigh abstract notions and hold ourselves accountable to moral ideals, the intervening centuries have seen a transformation in attitudes about slavery, democracy and the rights of women. These hardly amount to “this or that obscure issue.”
And Mr. Peterson simply ignores several decades worth of recent studies in cognitive science by researchers such as David Povinelli, Bruce Hood, Michael Tomasello and Elisabetta Visalberghi, which have elucidated very real differences between human and nonhuman minds in the realm of conceptual reasoning, particularly with respect to what has been termed “theory of mind.” This is the uniquely human ability to have thoughts about thoughts and to perceive that other minds exist and that they can hold ideas and beliefs different from one’s own. While human and animal minds share a broadly similar ability to learn from experience, formulate intentions and store memories, careful experiments have repeatedly come up empty when attempting to establish the existence of a theory of mind in nonhumans.
Would-be HE deconstructionists think that by undermining our self conception as the uniquely important species, they will convince us to that we are merely one small component of the broader natural world. They naively believe that by moving us beyond what they consider to be an obsolete and limited brotherhood of man concept (which we still haven’t attained) into a mystical (or practical, depending on the advocate) understanding of the oneness of all, that we will apply the Golden Rule to all of nature.
But I believe the opposite is true. Human exceptionalism, the uniqueness of human life, is the essential understanding that gives rise to our duties to nature and animals. If we come to think we are just another animal in the forest, I believe it would reverse the centuries of moral progress we have made and justify returning to our more brutal ways. And here is a profound irony: Anti human exceptionalists insist that we are not special–even as they impose self-sacrificing obligations upon us, duties to “the other,” we alone bear. But that very understanding makes us exceptional, no matter what you want to call it. They just want the duties part to apply, without the concomitant rights.
Budiansky has written a long and interesting review that respectfully disagrees with Peterson’s main thesis but which takes his ideas seriously. As an author, I can say that is all we can hope for in a reviewer. I don’t have space to fully discuss the whole essay, but I think it is well worth your reading. Highly recommended.
March 12th, 2011 | 1:21 pm
The burden of proof is really on the those who claim that HE is invalid. Of course, in making that argurment, they give evidence of HE, for no animal can or would. People who deny HE should try thinking like an animal. A dog knows the difference between a cat and a human and that the human is superior — whoever heard of a dog being a cat’s pet? What does it mean that a human cannot see what an animal sees? What does it mean to claim as an equal something that knows instinctively that we are superior?
http://authenticbioethics.blogspot.com/2010/08/most-dangerous-idea-in-bioethics.html
HistoryWriter Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
@AuthenticBioethics,
Usually it’s the one making the claim who has the burden of proving it. Wesley has yet to prove HE beyond reasonable doubt.
HW
March 12th, 2011 | 7:39 pm
One can fully concede, or acknowledge that, humans are “exceptional”, and accept animal rights. Wesley claims that, by accepting animal rights, we will become just another “animal in the forest”. How so? Where’s the argument? Maybe he’s provided one, that’s valid, but it’s escaped me. The claim is, by giving animals rights, our own rights are threatened. If true, one would have expected this to play out in history: by giving black people the same rights as white people, the latter’s rights would be reduced, or threatened in some way. Of course, this is ludicrous, and never happened.
If one gives animals rights, humans would still have all the rights they ever had, analogous to the situation when we gave black people the same rights as white people, the latter still had the same rights they always had.
Wesley, one might also think that, if animals are given rights, and we would become just “another animal in the forest”, as you put it, that it would be logical to observe, in history, with the gradual improvement, in the way humans treat other animals, a corresponding, reduction in human rights, or a reduction in laws, protecting humans.
But we see no such thing. We see a harmonious relationship, between laws protecting humans, and laws protecting animals. In other words, if your hypothesis was correct, Wesley, increases, in animal protection, would cause, or at least have a meaningful connection, with a decrease, in human protections.
Dblade Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 11:14 am
@Bret Lythgoe, No, you can’t accept animal rights. You can accept human responsibilities to protect, but for animals to have rights they’d need to either be able to enforce them themselves or have the potential to.
You might as well say trees have rights, the comparison is closer to them with animals than people.
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
@Dblade, I respect your position, and concerns, but conspicuously absent, in your comments, is an argument against animal rights. You assert, but don’t provide reasons, for your assertions.
You claim that, in order for animals to have rights, they must be able to “enforce them themselves, or have the potential to”. Really? Why? I’m assuming you don’t require newborn babies, or mentally handicapped humans, to do the same?
Trees, and all other plants don’t have rights, because they’re not sentient, or conscious, and therefore what’s done to them, doesn’t hurt them, or matter to them.
The reason animals have rights is, they’re conscious, and can suffer.
March 12th, 2011 | 10:32 pm
One can fully concede, or acknowledge that, humans are “exceptional”, and accept animal rights.
Well, yes and no.
Sure, cruelty is a bad thing. I’ll go wit that.
But most “animal rights” makes no sense. It’s about feeling good, about enabling one to deny aspects of reality one finds frightening – not about actually making any positive changes to the world.
Take, for instance, the vegetarian arguments that it is morally wrong to eat animals. Apparently they imagine that all those uneaten will get to live out their natural lives in peace and comfort – but then they point out how much grain you could grow on that land, if only there weren’t a cow on it. Apparently they are envisioning a world without cows?
And yet, if they are imagining a cowless world, one has to wonder how they’re going to grow all that grain – because of course anyone who has ever had a garden knows you need to add manure. You can’t just feed people out of a patch of land, then use the waste from those people to feed the land; that closed system would be a downward spiral.
Ultimately, the right to redefine what is and is not “human” according to one’s own emotional response is not only narcissistic, but has very troubling ramifications. What resources would you take away from human beings?
How will rights be re-prioritized, once we have granted that the world’s affluent the right to re-allocate and re-prioritize according to their own emotional responses, so that a family or even an entire nation out of your sight is worth less than a dog in your line of vision?
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 12:47 am
@Blake, I understand your concerns. but animal rights is not about emotion. It’s about sound reasoning. It’s about questioning what basis, we, as humans have, for exploiting, and killing billions of conscious creatures, on a regular basis. What gives us the right to do this? Is it because we have more power than they do? If so, then, we’re relying on “might makes right”, hardly a respectable moral justification. Is it because we’re smarter than they are? Is it because they look different than we do?
Clearly, none of these constitute reasonable excuses for exploiting and killing animals, Blake. Of course, if one believes that only humans matter, or matter the most, then believing in animal rights, could be construed as dangerous.
But the beauty of reasoning, about issues, is that it transcends selfishness, and our own comfort. If a view has a rational basis, to it, it may still be unpleasant, for us to implement. We may have to sacrifice our own desires, for the good of others.
And what about the good of others? The animals, who are exploited and killed have feelings, and suffer. Why do we tend to think that their suffering doesn’t matter, or should be superceded by anything humans want or need? This is very poor moral reasoning, and looks suspiciously like good old fashioned selfishness to me.
Really the differences, between humans and other animals, boils down to animals being less intelligent than us, looking different than us, and not being able to behave morally, toward us. With all due respect to those against animal rights, but this is a pathetically deficient list of reasons, for us to exclude them, from our rights community, and an intellectual embarassment.
my guess is, and I could be wrong, but it really boils down to the reality that, animals having rights will require us humans to sacrifice, and give up some of our comforts, but to save face, we come up with specious reasoning that, animals can’t recognize our rights, so therefore they don’t have rights, or humans rights will somehow (rather mysteriously) be threatened, by giving animals rights. Perhaps a less than entirely respectable way for the Exceptional species to behave?
March 13th, 2011 | 1:09 am
Ironically, we’re behaving like “just another animal in the forest”, when we exploit and kill other animals. It’s only by transcending our selfish wishes, and giving all conscious creatures rights, that we behave in an unique, exclusively, human exceptional manner. By exploiting and killing them, because the alternative is unpleasant for us, makes us, ironically, look like a sophisticated ape, that behaves like any other ape would behave, who didn’t have our morals.
padraig Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
@Bret Lythgoe, If we kill and eat other animals until their population dwindles below a level that supports us and we move on to another area, yes, we are acting like just any animal in the forest; completely selfish and short-sighted.
However, if we cultivate crops, domesticate animals, self-limit hunting of wild animals, and use our unique human abilities to protect the populations of other species, then we’re not just another animal. All those activities are uniquely human.
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
March 13th, 2011 at 7:01 pm
@padraig, Clearly, any animal, will behave toward any other animal, in a way or ways that increase its advantage. That is, lions will behave in specific ways, toward other animals, that’s different than how chimps behave toward other animals, to give two examples. But what ALL animals, have in common, is that they exploit other animals, to their advantage, the specifics, will, of course, differ, depending on factors, relevant to that animal. All you’ve done, Padraig, is specify how humans can exploit other animals to humans advantage.
What makes ud different, than other animals, is our ability to rationally decipher, what is morally correct, EVEN WHEN this conclusion, is not to our advantage. This is what’s uniquely human. What you’ve described, is merely our specific ways of exploiting other animals, and in that way (the exploiting part) we’re no different than other animals. Where we show our exceptional trait, is our ability to treat other animals morally, not because it helps us, but based on abstract moral principles, that lead us to conclude that it’s the right thing to do.
My position is, to show one’s consistent adherence, to Human Exceptionalism, requires us to sacrifice our own selfish desires, for the good of other beings.
padraig Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 9:48 am
@Bret Lythgoe, What you’re describing is altruism, which forces me to quote writer Robert W. Heinlein twice:
“Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.”
Later on after he’d thought it through a bit more, he allowed this much:
“If tempted by something that feels “altruistic,” examine your motives and root out that self-deception. Then, if you still want to do it, wallow in it!”
I’ve found this to be an outstanding way to examine my own motives and to be far more effective in what “altruistic” activities I pursue. Others do the same. Ducks Unlimited and their ilk preserve wildlife to preserve hunting. People sell their property to Nature Conservancy instead of building subdivisions. Sierra Club advocates for cleaner air and water, which we then breathe and drink.
Look at the animals AR’s care the most for. They’re the ones closest to humans, or that we have the most contact with. Nobody crusades for the tse-tse fly or slime molds.
A rationale for caring for other species based on pure altruism is doomed to failure. It makes far more sense to appeal on the basis of our interdependence with other species. As the honeybees go, so do we. That resonates a heck of a lot better than arguing that lobsters are sentient.
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 7:28 pm
@padraig, Clearly, we should all investigate our own motives, to see if we’re being selfish or not. But even if people are ALL really selfish (which I don’t believe, at all, do you?) that would in no way mean the arguments for animal rights are invalid. The arguments must be assessed, on their intrinsic merits. You say that altruism cannot work, why not?
padraig Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 9:40 am
@Bret Lythgoe, “But even if people are ALL really selfish (which I don’t believe, at all, do you?)”
Yes I do, because it’s true of all living organisms.
Humans are born selfish (ever spent time with a two-year old?) and learn unselfishness via socialization.
Where do we draw the line between personal privilege and social responsibility? Well, that pretty much defines politics, social policy, personal values, and economic strategies, and tells us why Ayn Rand and George Orwell still get a lot of attention.
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
@padraig, Also, you claim that, AR groups care for those animals similar to us. They care for, as I’ve seen, those that fulfill the criteria for having rights. That’s how I do it. It would make no sense to argue for the “rights” of slime mold or flies, since they’re not conscious, and the latter (or the potential for consciousness) is the criterion for rights. You might as well castize them for not being for the rights of tables and chairs.
Even if they (we) are inconsistent, in how and who the rights are applied, it’s iirelevant to whether the arguments, for animal rights are sound (and they are, by the way).
padraig Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 9:48 am
@Bret Lythgoe, YOUR criteria for having rights. You’re still putting yourself in charge, aren’t you?
In America we’ve decided that simply being human is the basis for being granted basic rights by other humans. Additional rights and privileges are granted to individuals by human society according to their ability to meet corresponding obligations. In that respect, our system of rights is a contract between individuals of like mind.
Nothing in there about being “conscious” or “sentient.” It’s all about being human.
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 1:24 am
@padraig, With all due respect, it’s NOT a matter of me “deciding” who has rights, if you mean my preferences. It’s a matter of me (and it’s not just me. Many highly respected legal scholars, and philosphers, Gary Francione, is merely one example) recognizing the validity of sentience, as the only reasonable criterion for granting a being rights.
The assertion that, we’ve decided, as americans that merely being human gives one rights, is without a rational foundation. Also, the granting of additional rights, based on one’s ability to ”meet corresponding obligations”, is also without a rational foundation. considering how specious these arguments are, I would think that, anyone espousing them, would feel just a wee bit embarassed, because they’re really bad. Seriously.
March 14th, 2011 | 9:54 am
Bret, it seems you know, based on your comments, that humans are different. You continuously demean that difference by referring to the fact that we protect the least humans among us, but there are many reasons we do that which have nothing to do with rights.
Animal rights by privileged urbanites is nothing but crocodile tears. All agriculture and many other forms of production kill animals. If you were really serious about animal deaths being important, you would not have a house, a car, new clothing, a computer…
padraig Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 2:47 pm
@Melissa, winner winner, free-range organically fed chicken dinner.
Humans cannot live without having some adverse effect on other species. Frankly, one of the most environmentally damaging things we can do is to simply occupy habitat. It is in our interests to minimize the long-term damages we cause, but the only way for a human being to reach the standards proposed by AR’s would be to kill ourselves.
And THAT is why the AR philosophy is frequently interpreted as being anti-human. Because in its strictest form, it IS anti-human.
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 7:43 pm
@padraig, Really all humans are in competition with each other as well. But no one argues that some humans should have more access to resources, than others.
padraig Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
@Bret Lythgoe, They don’t? Better think that one over. Most if not all wars are over control of resources. So you can make that argument once there are no wars anywhere in the world, but not until.
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
@padraig, I was in a rush, when I wrote that, so it sounded, not as I intended. Sorry about that.
My point is, humans are in competition, with each other, similar to humans being in competition with animals. but no one argues, seriously that, some people have a right to oppress other people, or kill them, to get their resources. But many who are against animal rights, argue that it’s morally legitimate to kill other animals, or otherwise deprive them, of their resources, that’s not to their (the animals) advantage, when they would never dream of doing such a thing to other humans.
My point is, we’re all in competition. Humans are in competition with each other, but we’ve found a way to do it (imperfectly), that’s congruent with human rights. We can also see ourselves in competition with other sentient animals, but compete with them fairly, in a way congruent with their (the animals) rights.
Bret lythgoe Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
@Melissa, Be careful with that line of reasoning, Melissa, it can easily be turned on you. If you “really” cared about human well being, you wouldn’t drive a car (think of the risk of death), you would give away most of your income to charity, etc. Of course, when examined closely, this reasoning is specious, as is yours, here.
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
March 15th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
@Melissa, You state: “Bret, it seems you know, based on your comments, that humans are different. You continuously demean the difference by referring to the fact that we protect the least humans among us, but there are many reasons we do this, that have nothing to do with rights.”
Of course I believe humans are different, how could one credibly think otherwise? Humans have morals, for example, meaning they should apply them, consistently, to other creatures. But due to our extra intelligience, and moral, ans artistic capacities, as opposed to other animals, we’re not entitiled to more rights than other animals.
I fully support the rights of human fetuses, babies, mentally handicapped, etc., but not because they can reciprocate morally, or understand rights, which are reasons those who are against animal rights, give, for denying animals rights. This is unjustifiable. tellingly, you seem to concede this, by stating that, we have “other reasons for protecting”, the ‘least among us”.
If the ability to reason morally, reciprocate morally, were enough, why would we need other reasons, to protect them?
March 14th, 2011 | 2:11 pm
Where we show our exceptional trait, is our ability to treat other animals morally, not because it helps us, but based on abstract moral principles, that lead us to conclude that it’s the right thing to do.
This is all true, but there is a difference between me choosing to do without a vital resource so that an animal’s needs can take preference, vs. me choosing to let my brothers and sisters do without a vital resource so that an animal’s needs can have preference.
HistoryWriter Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
@Blake,
Could you elaborate on that a little more. Are you saying that you have no moral right to make personal decisions for other people?
HW
Blake Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
@HistoryWriter,
No, I’m saying that Bret’s argument is that it’s moral for people to sacrifice something so that animals may live better.
And I’m saying, yes, if that were what was happening, it might be moral, but it isn’t what’s happening.
What is really happening is that some people, wanting to shield themselves from unpleasant realities – and, of course, comfort themselves with how pious they are and false feelgood so that they don’t have to feel uncomfortable or guilty about the fact that resources tend to be distributed unequally in this lifetime – want to transfer resources away from the people they don’t want to look at, toward their own fantasy of pretending that nobody is suffering anywhere.
They want a world where even the animals never suffer, and they want dehumanized human beings to pay for it.
There are many problems with this scenario, but perhaps the biggest one is that ethically, it’s just not right to rob the house that feeds you.
Blake Reply:
March 14th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
@Blake,
I am suggesting that killing a sick child to provide for a rabbit is not moral if the primary motive is so that someone doesn’t have to look at the death of a rabbit.
Death is of course a fact of life – whether it is a rabbit or a child – but in the prioritizing of resources, it is both morally wrong and also pragmatically unsustainable, to redraw the lines so that your wish to not see death is the priority, even as others within your social unit must lose rights so that you may gain more than your fair share of rights.
March 15th, 2011 | 3:31 pm
[...] Wesley J. Smith discusses a WSJ book review of Dale Peterson’s The Moral Lives of Animals. Peterson considers human exceptionalism to be “Darwinian narcissism.” Smith responds: [...]
March 16th, 2011 | 12:47 pm
@Bret Lythgoe
If animals have rights, what are their duties in society? Rights and duties go hand-in-hand. You cannot truly have one one without the other. If you think that you can have rights without duties please educate me how that is possible. Protections for animals, yes! Rights? Absurd.
Alex Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 2:18 pm
@Michael,
Isnt protection a right?
And I think you meant OUR society. Because in a society of lions, I wouldnt have a duty or a right.A purpose maybe.
Morals lead to protection, protection leads to rights.
We are either equal in life or paint ourselves superior. The real question is what superior means to whom.
Gotta go, my dog just signaled me he wants to go outside. Stupid thing.
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
March 16th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
@Michael, You state the common claim, made by many, who deny animals rights: one must have a “duty”. This claim, is without a rational foundation. i’ve never heard an argument, that’s pursuasive, why one must have an understanding of rights, or be able to reciprocate, by respecting others rights. When it’s pointed out by many, many, thinkers, that this position is inconsistently heald, in the form of allowing babies, and the mentally handicapped humans, who are incapable of reciprocating moral treatment, or understanding rights, one is given, at least by Wesley that, the fact that they’re human, and it’s in their “natures”, to behave that way. But it’s not. It’s not in the nature of a baby, qua baby, to respect anyone’s rights. It’s not in the nature of mentally handicapped humans, qua handicapped humans, to respect anyone’s rights, or manifest any of the traits listed, for belonging to the rights club.
What I think they’re saying, is, by vitue of belonging to a species, every member, has the capacity to manifest all the traits, that many, or most members manifest. But with respect to the adherents of this view, it’s incoherent. IF the criteria, for having rights, is the ability to respect others rights, reciprocate morally, etc., and if “X” cannot manifest these criteria, then he cannot have rights. this is simply a matter of pure logic.
padraig Reply:
March 17th, 2011 at 9:57 am
@Bret Lythgoe, The duties of a baby are deferred until adulthood. But those duties are expected to be fulfilled to the extent of that person’s abilities. We grant basic rights to babies to allow them the opportunity to become capable of assuming their responsibilities.
We take care of elderly and handicapped persons because we still value them as human beings. This is our choice as a successful and advanced society. Earlier civilizations would have left them on the hillside for the wolves.
Is that enough to get you off this tired and invalid “why do babies have rights?” meme?
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
March 18th, 2011 at 1:37 am
@padraig, It’s not invalid. And I’ll keep repeating it, when necessary, until (I’m not going to hold my breath, incidently) I hear a valid reason, why it’s wrong. I like you padraig, but sorry, you haven’t successfully shown that it’s wrong.
what you’ve stated are essentially pragmatic decisions that, as a society, we’ve chosen to do. But they don’t address the inherent contradiction philosophically. That is, if we base the giving of rights on the ability to reciprocate morally, and recognize others rights, any being, that doesn’t have these corresponding traits, can’t have rights. Everything you said, does not address this point. you say we “defer” the duties of babies, until adulthood. Irrelevant. What we’re talking about is babies, in the present. And, last time i checked, they couldn’t respect anyone’s rights.
you talk about the fact that we care for elderly (although I’m unclear how the elderly fit, here, since they can reciprocate morally, and rwespect others rights, unless they have some form of dementia) and handicapped people “because we value them as human beings”. That’s not the point! Again, irrelevant! Our decision to value them, is an arbitrary choice, in spite of the argument that, a being must be able to respect the rights of others. You cannot seriously think that this, with all due respect, is suppose to “convince” me of the errors of my ways, is it a joke?
by the way, if it’s our “choice”, then we could easily choose to give all animals rights, and you would have no argument against it, Padraig.
March 18th, 2011 | 4:57 am
Padraig: We’re certainly right, as individuals, and as a society, to value and protect human infants, the elderly, the mentally handicapped. Which makes it ironic, and odd, because, under the “rights are dependent on being able to understand rights, and reciprocate view”, there’s no rational basis for protecting the above mentioned people. One’s left with, as you stated above, the arbitrary decision that, we protect them, because they’re human, and we value humans, more than other creatures. But when asked WHY, the rational basis, for why we protect humans, and not other animals to the point that other animals are given rights, the only response one has, is, well, we want to, and that’s that. Hardly an intellectually respectable position.
Basically we have two arguments here: the first, is, in order to have rights, a being must be able to understand the concept of rights, and respect the rights of others. On this basis, the being is granted rights. however, when it’s shown that, obviously, there are beings, the same in every respect (i.e., the same species), as the first group, EXCEPT they don’t fulfill the criteria that supposedly has to be conformed to, in order to have rights, the endorsers of only humans having rights, fall back on, well, it’s not even an argument at all, but mere assertion that, merely being human is sufficient, for having rights, but when asked WHY, merely being human should be accepted, as a criterion for having rights, one’s at a loss. One is stuck in this purely arbitrary rut.
I can see why those against animal rights, want this argument (not my argument, by the way, it’s pointed out by many philosophers, for good reason) to go away, it shows how completely bankrupt, intellectually, the position really is.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact