Pacific Empire reader Chris asked a very pertinent question last week, after reading my Wikipedia profile, in which I declare that I am a
Speciesist (intelligence is special, so humans are more important than animals)
Chris asks,
I would like to know why you think intelligence is “special†and also what you mean by that. And if, as you say, the fact that humans are more intelligent than other animals means that we are therefore more important, then surely it follows that humans who are more intelligent than other humans are more important than their less intelligent brethren?
If not, why not?
And, what exactly does my supposed superiority over my dog allow me to do to that dog, and what does a very intelligent person’s superiority allow them to do to a stupid person? Ie, what is the nature of the relationship?
I believe Chris’ question can be divided into three parts:
1. Why are humans categorically exceptional as compared to animals?
Humans are sapient creatures. The possession of sapience makes them moral agents. If a human hurts another human, in general we hold them responsible for their actions; if your dog hurts another person, in general we do not hold them responsible. The dog may be put to death, but that is a practical consideration rather than a moral judgement. An alien creature could certainly be a sapient being, capable of being a moral agent equivalent to a human. However, no animals on Earth are human-level moral agents.
To expand my point about moral agents, animals do not have moral duties (eg, animals like lions are not held morally responsible when they kill their prey) and therefore they cannot possess moral rights (eg, the right not to be hurt or killed by humans).
2. Do intelligent humans have special rights over less intelligent humans?
Humans as a group possess sapience, which is not identical to intellience (IQ level). Possessing a particular IQ does not grant any natural rights over others with a lower IQ. We grant all humans natural rights regardless of IQ. I do believe that certain humans with zero neurological function are technically no longer sapient beings and might be used for, eg, drug research or organ donation, with no ethical problems. From a common law perspective, this would require the permission of their immediate family who ‘own’ the body and are responsible for making that kind of decision.
3. What rights do animals have?
Animals possess only those rights which we give them. Western culture has chosen to grant animals the ‘right’ to a quick, painless death, and to proper care when in human possession. I think these rights are simple social constructions – I agree with them, but they are not ‘natural rights’ which humans possess. They are essentially ‘imaginary’ rights which only apply because we want them to. For instance, if you get lost in the woods, it might be necessary to kill a animal with a crude trap. This would break imaginary animal rights about cruelty, but it is morally acceptable because the right of the human to eat to survive trumps any animal rights.
It would not be morally acceptable to kill a human in a crude trap to remain alive, even if there was nothing else to eat. Even in the most dire of situations, killing and eating another human being is only morally acceptable with mutual consent (eg, consent to having a lottery of who to eat first).
For a real-life example, a shark who bit a boys arm off was quickly killed and gutted to retrieve the arm. The natural right of the boy to have his arm reattached trumped the shark’s ‘right to life’ which is simply a cultural construction.
So to answer your question “what does my supposed superiority over my dog allow me to do to that dog”? You may do whatever you wish to that dog. However, other people will judge you based on your actions. If you break the social constructions about ‘animal rights’ you will have to have a good reason (eg, needing to eat it to survive), or other people will be disgusted. In the end, the disapproval of other people is all that is stopping you from torturing your dog to death (assuming you want to do so, you sick, sick bastard).
Luke, I see from your Wikipedia profile that you are an atheist (“no evidence for God(ess)(s/es), therefore its foolish to postulate one”).
You disbelieve in divinity, yet you believe in morality. You believe in the existence of moral agents, moral duties and moral rights (and, furthermore, “natural” rights as opposed to mere “socially constructed” rights). But there is no evidence for any of these, so it is foolish to postulate them.
Before you defend your claim that there really is a moral realm, consider what general kind of thing would count as evidence for the existence of a divine realm. In the light of those considerations, consider what general kind of thing would count as evidence for the existence of moral rights and responsibilities, etc. Then cite some actual evidence. I won’t hold my breath.
You believe that humans are categorically exceptional as compared to other animals, on the grounds of sapience. It’s instructive to read what Wikipedia says about Linnaeus, who named us homo sapiens.
Strangely, it seems that he did not consider the idea whether humans were just another kind of animal when choosing this name, instead basing his selection on contemperorarily [sic] deep religious convictions that man was a product of special creation. Thus, his chosen biological name was intended to emphasize man’s uniqueness and separation from the rest of the animal kingdom.
It seems that the very name of our species is question-begging! We may be exceptional, but we are not categorically exceptional. We’re not unique, just at one end of the spectrum.
The foundations of our belief that we are special were swept away in 1859. Yet our ignorance and arrogance are such that the belief that we are special has not crumbled. Evidence that we are still in the grip of theistic, pre-1859 belief systems is everywhere, including this blog post. For example, you ask, “Why are humans categorically exceptional as compared to animals?” when surely you mean to ask, “Why are humans categorically exceptional as compared to other (non-human) animals?”. The only thing we can be when compared to ourselves is the same. There are libertarians elsewhere who are happy to categorically deny even that we are animals, thereby denying one of the fundamental tenets of modern biology.
You haven’t said much about the foundations of morality, but what I glean from your post and your link to the Wikipedia article on moral agency is that you think that humans have moral rights and responsibilities on account of their membership of a group, some of whose members are sapient. You think that morality is based on our rationality, and our consequent ability to form self-interested judgments and enter into social contract type arrangements with other rational, self-interested beings.
A social contract is not worth the paper it’s not written on, and cannot be the basis of morality (even supposing morality has a basis). And if it was, it would not allow you to distinguish between the so-called natural rights of humans and the “socially constructed” rights of animals, since according to contractarianism, both types of rights arise in the same way – by being granted to the rights-holders by social convention.
Left by Richard on April 21st, 2007