The January Human Exceptionalist is now out for your perusal. Here is my introductory letter. From the HE:
Dear Exceptional Human:
Happy New Year to all from the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism! It may be 2012, but the struggle to maintain human exceptionalism as the foundational principle of society continues. Indeed, if anything, the contest is heating up.
What makes human beings exceptional? One difference between us and fauna is free will. Or, to put it another way, human beings alone—among all known species in the universe—possess moral agency.
Or do we? Increasingly some scientists contend that free will is actually an illusion—including the article published in USA Today linked below. Rather than being free, these advocates claim, we actually are mere automatons acting at the unseen behest of our “meat computer” brains—which are, in turn, driven like a car by genes, or chemicals (or whatever). The gist of their argument is that we actually have no control over what we think, say, or do.
It seems to me that such arguments deny the very existence of consciousness. If we have no control over our thoughts or actions, we are merely flotsam and jetsam floating on the tides of physical forces rather than autonomous individuals with human freedom to think and act — and be held accountable for what we do and don’t do.
Ironically, those who deny free will also usually advocate that we somehow use the knowledge of our own slavery as a motive to improve the world. But that is nonsensical since it would require our deciding first, what constitutes a better world, and then second, going out with intentionality to make it so. Besides, denying free will unleashes a wild relativism that allows anything and judges nothing (except supporting intelligent design). But then, that may be the actual point of the entire exercise.
On a different but perhaps related note, neural science may have found a biological basis for human exceptionalism. Genes of the human brain express differently than those of chimpanzees. This discovery could explain some of the physical distinctions between us and animals that translate into such a huge moral difference.
And speaking of chimpanzees, in this edition of the Human Exceptionalist, you will read about the National Institutes of Health restricting funding of research on our closest genetic relatives. But note: Francis Collins, the head of the NIH, contends that chimps deserve special consideration because of their close affinity with human beings—an affirmation of human exceptionalism! The Human Exceptionalist agrees.
Moving from the sublime to the ridiculous, the BBC named a panda sow one of the women’s faces of the year! Where is Gloria Steinem when you need her?
Meanwhile, global warming radicals have proposed that “Mother Earth” be accorded rights as a means of fighting climate change. Not only are such proposals akin to a neo earth religion, but they materially threaten human prosperity and thriving. The time has come to stop rolling our eyes at these radical notions and contest them vigorously in the marketplace of ideas. But then, that’s why the Center on Human Exceptionalism is here; to stand tall for the importance of being human.
I like the HE because it connects dots over a broad array of issues that mostly erode, but sometimes support, human exceptionalism. Too many people remain complacent in the face of acute and chronic threats to the unique value of human life.
January 13th, 2012 | 1:23 pm
“IT” is so simple Wesley! You have faith or you don’t with humanity’s free will!
Of course there’s going to be a LOT of UPs and Downs on our road to Damascus but let’s not quit to soon just because we think we’ve found “IT” cause there might be a LOT more to “IT” than meets the “I” if you know what “I” mean and if you don’t, just ask some of Darwin’s spiritual Jeans?
Anyway Wesley, we both know by NOW that me, myself and i with the help of sinner vic could go round and round chasing our piece of tail but “I” ask you, what good would “IT” do if these dogs of 1946 end UP by urinating on our dead bodies?
I hear ya! Nice to hear from you again Victor but WHAT THE HELL YOU TALKING ABOUT? :)
PEACE
January 15th, 2012 | 12:53 pm
1. Humans are fauna.
You mean the difference between ourselves (homo sapiens, sapiens) and other fauna, correct?
2. And, you have essentially defined “free will” as “moral agency”, which is fine by me.
Yet, Coyne essentially defined “free will” in a USA Today piece (if I recall correctly) as the ability to consciously choose one option among two or more, either instantaneously or after deliberation. (the more I think about it, I’m not a huge fan of Coyne’s definition, but that’s irrelevant here)
As you have an entirely different, nearly orthogonal, working definition from these “scientists”, your point is moot to theirs, and vice-a-versa.
Apples to oranges. There is no debate here.
This is like Galileo, under threat of death from the experts of the Catholic church, claiming the Earth and other planets of our solar system revolve around the sun, while you say Jupiter has over 50 revolving moons.
Both are correct, yet they are entirely different claims.
To me, it seems that if we lack free will, it has no bearing on whether or not we are exceptional. We can define ourselves as exceptional due to our cognitive advantages, empathy, emotions, mythology and faith, progress, knowledge, curiosity, cooperation, hedonism, bipedalism, tool/technology usage, etc, etc. It’s all good.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 15th, 2012 at 4:27 pm
Speak for yourself, David. In general usage, fauna refers to wildlife or animals of a region, not humans. Just like we don’t call humans animals. We call them humans and animals, animals. Heck, even scientists call animals non human animals. We are morally distinct. This isn’t biology, it is ethics. And here, we distinguish between them and us.
Bipedalism is morally irrelevent, by the way. It is a physical attribute only, even if it helped lead to the moral distinctions.
January 17th, 2012 | 7:39 am
Dario Maestripieri is a behavioral biologist who is known for his research and writings about biological aspects of behavior in nonhuman primates and humans.
Maestripieri has published six books, several popular science essays, and over 175 scientific articles.
He is currently a Professor of Comparative Human Development, Evolutionary Biology, and Neurobiology at The University of Chicago.
He has been a Professor at the University of Chicago since 1999.
In Macachiavellian Intelligence: How Rhesus Macaques and Humans Have Conquered the World, he highlights the many parallels between the social behavior of rhesus macaques and human beings and explains them using evolutionary and economic cost-benefit analyses.
He also suggests that complex political intelligence evolved in highly competitive primate societies played a role in the evolution of the human brain and human intelligence, as well as in our ecological success on this planet.
Maternal Effects in Mammals is an edited collection of theoretical and empirical essays addressing the role of nongenetic maternal influences on phenotypic evolution in many species of mammals.
In Animal Personalities: Behavior, Physiology, and Evolution, research on individual differences in behavior and reactivity to the environment in many animals and humans is discussed and integrated from a comparative and evolutionary perspective.
In Games Primates Play: An Undercover Investigation of the Evolution and Economics of Human Relationships, Maestripieri illustrates how evolutionary and comparative studies, along with economic cost-benefit analyses of behavior, can explain why people behave the way they do in everyday social situations and in the negotiation of their personal and business relationships.
Learn about yourself Mr. Smith.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 10:07 am
I don’t care HOW we became exceptional, I care that we acknowledge we ARE.
Harryhammer Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 11:03 am
@Wesley J. Smith,
Do you care about WHEN?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
January 17th, 2012 at 11:33 am
Nope. What matters is now. I am referring in both cases to how we perceive ourselves. I certainly am not opposed to learning the history, science, or philosophies of the factors that led to us.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact