Defending Human Exceptionalism Against Derbyshire's Loss of Faith
John Derbyshire, the NRO writer, had a very interesting article a few days ago describing his loss of Christian faith. I would not have commented upon this piece except for his attempt to tear down human exceptionalism along with his faith.
It is my strong belief that according human beings a special and unique status is essential to the betterment of the world. I explain why Derbyshire is wrong in this First Things blog entry.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 9:27 AM
12 Comments
12 Comments:
Thanks for the reminder - we are more than the physical, more than just our DNA. Well-written article.
Thanks, Kelly. And I think what I wrote is true regardless of whether we are the product of blind evolution, intellegently designed by aliens, or created in the image of God.
There are several interesting comments I'd like to make on what Mr. Derbyshire said.
Human beings are not special? Which other species on this planet has made *any* advances in art, technology, science, linguistics, and on & on? Some people are of the opinion that if we think we are somehow "special" it somehow makes us arrogant, that is we would abuse nature for our own selfish ends. On the contrary, recognizing that we alone possess certain unique gifts - the gift of true communication, the gift of having a global mindset - would allow us to *use* those gifts. Recognizing that we are privileged is quite different from *abusing* our privilege.
Why do I say that humans alone possess a global mindset, humans alone have true communication? The birds & bees & trees & mushrooms certainly aren't doing for world conservation!! If we recognize that we are unique - we'll understand that if humans don't take steps to save our planet, no other species of ape/dolphin/parrot will do that. In fact, as far as we know, no other species even has the capacity to *think* of world conservation/global peace, let alone actually achieve it.
Interesting thought ven. I concur, that humans have a larger responsibility than other species.
That said, something Derbyshire said got me thinking....basically, the idea that perhaps humans were "the first" to be moral, in a similar position that the first species to see and understand visible light. Oh - the world that was opened to them.
So, if the world of morality and higher thinking were first opened to humans, is it possible for other species to follow? If so, how should we address other species that might have the capacity to become moral?
Well, it got me thinking....
Royale: You've been thinking about this for some time.
There is an awful lot of anthromorphism that goes on, in my opinion, among those seeking to elevate animal capacities in order to equate them to humans.
If such a thing were to occur, and given the pace of evolution it would take hundreds of thousands of years if it were to happen quickly, I think you would address it like I discussed with regard how we should view elephants that may be seeing themselves in the mirror. It would be a factor in determining the extent and parameters of our duty to treat them humanely.
I'm with you, Ven. The very fact that we alone can be having this discussion is proof positive of our specialness and exceptionalism.
Beautiful reply to Mr. Derbyshire.
I wish we human beings were as receptive to each other as we are to animals.
Well, here's the cliff-notes version of my thoughts. Basically, it's a confluence of 3 different streams:
1. a religious ethic.
from buddhism (gentleness), Christ's Sermon on the mount (treat others, including other species the way you want you to be treated), generic monotheism (if God created the world, including other species, it's God's property, not ours. we are tenants)
2. a secular ethic - I believe that the human brain sets humans apart from other animals, anatomically, morally, etc...and nervous system has largely become the deciding factor in where I stand in just about all these bioethical issues. pain, self-awareness, potentially for brain, or respect for a dead brain...that's how I think. it's my lingua franca.
3. political pragmatism.
I think both WSJ's human exceptionalism ethic and the environmental/ animal rights ethic essentially make the same argument, but talk past each other. effectively, both can be strengthened by incorporating the other by emphasizing ALL life.
if chimps are important, then the unborn should be as well, and vice versa. it makes logical sense to me.
where all this leads is another matter, but I think it's a start.
Marci: I have thought some about how we are often more receptive to animals than to each other. I think it has to do with a projected innocence that we long for in a world that too often is filled with cruelty, deceipt, etc. I think we romanticize animals, which is fine, until it too becomes corrupted as in the animal rights movement.On the other hand, sometimes, we are gratuitously cruel to them too, often an early sign of serious mental illness.
Royale: Thanks for your serious and morally interesting views. I reject personhood theory for reasons I have made quite clear, but there is always room for greater care for all life.
It has always fascinated me that we treat people the way we treat helpless animals. As a mom, I helped all of my kids volunteer at the humane society shelters; two of them still do, and one gives physical therapy to dogs and cats. All of us--my children and I--were deeply concerned about the numbers of animals put to sleep in this country. I would so much more favor letting them run free and take their chances out in the world. I don't always buy the argument that we are sparing them suffering. The funny thing is that I sort of feel the same way about animals that I do about people--leave them alone. What is the hurry to "put people to sleep" or "put animals to sleep"? I have always feared that the "put the animals out of their suffering" mode of thought would ultimately affect our feelings toward people--and I believe it has. The bizarre thing about real life, as opposed to academic or mainstream media depiction of life, is that the most intelligent people I have ever known were (a) religious and (b) intensely loving toward their pets and animals. I think there is an intelligence in animals that we are too hasty to overlook because of the language barrier. But I would never put a person's life ahead of an animal's life. I believe we can ultimately achieve safety for both groups. The is why I loved your article is its perspective. Your thoughts are not cruel but very loving toward all of the wonder around us. I've often wished we could take the environmentalist-conservationist-preservationist approach to saving people! Goodness, they are pretty neat creatures too. Some of the old people I've met were pretty exciting and interesting, certainly as interesting as the polar bears and whales. Why can't we enjoy both? My son is a junior at the University of Montana. Last year he took a course in "ethics," and it posed the problem of the baby on the train tracks. He called every night for a while and ultimately flunked the course. He loves animals and babies. He doesn't understand what the issue is here. And I didn't know what to say. Except that I want to get Peter Singer out of the college campuses once and for all. The man is taking our wonderful, kind, and loving kids and screwing up their minds and hearts. I wrote to FrontPage and asked them to somehow distribute your essay to college campuses. You can't imagine how confused our children are. I wished I had had access to your beautifully constructed essay a year ago. My son, by the way, went into photography and he's now taking a course in the Old Testament. Just could not handle the Singer thing. These professors are the most insensitive group of people I have ever come across.
Marci: No fun being a feral animal. I was in Mexicali earlier this year and saw an awful lot of very sad and sick looking stray dogs. There are "no kill" shelters now, but I wonder about whether this is a wise use of resources and energy. Think of the human needs that go unmet. Still, I support anyone who serves others, be it humans or others.
That being said, there is a moral hierarchy of life that we ignore at our substantial peril. Sometimes, I think our love for animals is a yearning for innocence that we cannot find with people, other than the youngest children.
Post a Comment
<< Home