November 24, 2012
More Notes on Humans and Animals
Justin E. H. Smith in his own blog:
I am growing increasingly convinced that people who believe we have an absolute moral duty to see to the well-being of all other human beings, to install water-purifying equipment in villages on the other side of the world, etc., and who, at the same time, happily contribute to the ongoing mass slaughter of animals, are really just picking and choosing their causes. There simply is no compelling reason why I, or anyone, should suppose that all and only human beings are the worthy targets of moral concern. This is not to say that you should care about animals. It is only to say that there is nothing natural or obvious or conclusive about your belief that you should care about all and only human beings. Your belief is a prejudice, characteristic of a time and place, and not the final say about where the reach of moral community ends.
We have an extremely peculiar ontology, from which we suppose our moral commitments flow. It is unlike anything in human experience prior to the rise of the modern West. In all other places and times, since the appearance of the human species, there has been a presumption of some sort of shared socio-natural community that extends well beyond the boundaries of the species. This sounds like an exaggeration, and it attributes to many groups of people views they have left no explicit record of having supported. But from the explicit record, anyway, there is not a shred of evidence of any culture ever supposing, prior to our own, that moral community is defined by the boundaries of our species.
More here.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 07:15 AM | Permalink
Comments
Very thought-provoking post, though the title of the article, More Notes on Humans and Animals, is unfortunate, in that it implies that 'humans' are are distinct from animal life, precisely the contradiction the author attempts to address.
The biggest threat to all life on this planet is that, somehow, our species has come to imagine that it is 'special', functioning in what could be considered a parallel world. As the author points out, the evolution from hunter-gathering [in the service of immediate needs], to agriculture and domestication of animal species for human consumption [capacity to store wealth], was a huge step, which ultimately explains how homo sapiens evolved incrementally towards the hyper-consumerist, greedy, environmentally destructive species we are today. We've become pathological! Toxic to a shared and inclusive ecosystem.
The pity and shame is that our species didn't see the warning signs, didn't learn how to use that wealth-storage capability in a wise manner.
On the subject of humans' interaction with non-human species – and not merely mammals. If only contemporary humans understood how rooted in and dependent we are on the environment. It is estimated, for example, that 2-3 kilos of the weight of an adult human consists of microbes, essential to digestion, the immune system, with influences on brain chemistry and behavior. — We wouldn't be alive, if it weren't for that microbial life, which we're in the process of destroying through various synthetic substances: pesticides, herbicides and antibiotics, among other.
If only we humans could come around and [re]recognize the extent of our responsibility as a species amongst millions of others, there would be less need to think in terms of treatment and oppression of fellow humans.
Cats, slime mold, elephants, crows, mushrooms, etc, have a great deal to teach us, if homo sapiens would return from its parallel universe.
.
Posted by: Dana | Nov 24, 2012 12:52:13 PM
"...it implies that 'humans' are are distinct from animal life, precisely the contradiction the author attempts to address."
How many other forms of "animal life" sit around contemplating their relationships to other forms of animal life and fretting about the "morality" of this relationship?
I'm waiting....
This by definition makes humans "distinct from animal life."
It doesn't mean were are not all related evolutionarily; it doesn't mean the cow isn't our cousin.
It means the cow isn't a gnat, and a human isn't a cow, so shut up about it, please.
Posted by: mikeb | Nov 25, 2012 2:57:02 AM
Why such a rash response, mikeb, going so far as to demand that I "shut up".
Your analogies between cows and gnats and humans have nothing to do with the substance of what I wrote, which was to suggest that humans have lost their bearings, lost their sense of responsibility as a species.
I was responding to Justin Smith's premise, that "There simply is no compelling reason why I, or anyone, should suppose that all and only human beings are the worthy targets of moral concern".
I'd be happy to respond to any counter arguments to what I wrote, on condition that they contain some substance.
.
Posted by: Dana | Nov 25, 2012 10:51:42 AM
I expect mikeb wants the killing to go on so he/she can eat/wear/otherwise "enjoy" animals and animal products.
Posted by: Rita | Nov 25, 2012 12:21:02 PM
Post a comment