| 1. | not genuine, authentic, or true; not from the claimed, pretended, or proper source; counterfeit. |
| 2. | Biology. (of two or more parts, plants, etc.) having a similar appearance but a different structure. |
| 3. | of illegitimate birth; bastard. |
I should note that these are coming from dictionary.com. I'm also a big fan of that site's thesaurus sister site.
~~~~~~
In my previous post I explained my opinions on the gift of intellect. I should elaborate somewhat--I don't look down on our having sentience; it is indeed a huge benefit (I should also stop using gift, it implies a giver). However, one of the biggest plagues of our species (as I suppose and think likely would be the case with any species who came to sentience) has been our hubris. Our imagined self-importance, homo-centrism, etc. First we thought we were the purpose of all existence, and as an added bonus, that the Earth was in the center of the universe (where else would it be if it were ours?). The central Earth thing folded, but we continue to play the core concept, to this day, that our species is the purpose of everything in existence. And this has been called a humbling notion.
What prevents most of objective truth (or its reasonable pursuit, at least) from breaking through to mainstream knowledge these days, perhaps, is this imagined importance. If we do not have to seek meaning in our lives, if it is given, then why bother pondering existence endlessly? I am not saying having a purpose or a necessarily inspires lethargy, but it certainly can and does. If morality is a set of standards written in stone (literally or metaphorically), then why bother questioning those infallible tenets, even where they do not seem to result in appropriate action? Inductive reasoning has scarcely produced appropriate correspondences with reality. Our imaginations are too great. We must start from zero, build our importance from the ground up, not the sky down. Else we will forget all that does not stand as tall as us.
Science itself, probably the greatest tool for finding truth we have (through self-corrective measures--even science would back down if it had a better alternative to itself) depends upon a lack of authority. That includes a divine authority (not that divine authority implies incorrect morals; the opposite might be the case). Science works (like democracy should, I think) by having a set of rules and tools that anyone sentient can pick up, formulate opinions, subject to skepticism and arrive to their own conclusion. It assumes nothing.
If we assume everything is made for us, how can we ever become benevolent? Some of today's religions argue contradictory opinions, I think. The Catholic Church especially has some very passionate doctrines on selflessness. I argue that one cannot truly be selfless until one objectively (as possible) recognizes one's place, and acts accordingly. We are one of ten million species on a tiny rock, and are the only ones capable of making all the rules for everything on it.
Here is where I tie back into class (perhaps it seemed it would never come?). Compassion requires a lack of hubris, it is its very nature: to give, especially purposefully (and, ideally, only) for the benefit of something else. The great divide of intellect literally hands us over this planet. If God did exist, he'd be right in saying that we were 'given' this world along with our intellectual ability. And via recognizing this position of ours from the sky down, we have used it as a catalyst to justify our actions in taking, constantly. It seems counterintuitive now; I'm sure it wasn't as clear when sentience was mixing with agriculture to really change things. But building it from the ground up implies a clear directive--we have, at the very least, a responsibility to aid the nonhuman animals as much as ourselves, and, ideally (though it still sounds extreme to me) leaving less intellectual endowed life alone altogether. At this point (and as always, I could be terribly wrong), there occurs to me no selfless alternative. Maybe another time I will talk about whether or not being selfless is necessary.
4 comments:
Like case demand like treatment, as Aristotle would say. It follows, too, that differences in treatment are justified only to the extent that they correspond to morally relevant differences in the cases. What, then, are the morally relevant differences between our fellow humans and nonhumans that would serve to justify radically different treatment? (I know that you share my concerns here.)
An interesting question. I'll give it my best shot.
Humans have ceased to require instinctive survival skills in order to survive. For the most part, we have gotten along on our continued assistance of one another, and our continued reliance on those creatures not able to overcome the endowment of our species to further, enhance, and relax our lifestyles. In every situation regarding interaction of the two, one seeks survival and propagation, and the other may be working for any number of intellectual or similarly instinctual reasons. Though a sliding scale can be made for the consciousness of the nonhuman in question, morally it is like comparing a two dimension field to a three dimension field.
The situation nonhumans end up in, one without understanding of the situation it is in beyond its need to survive, automatically delegates it a position below us in regards to who decides for both. That which does not have the ability to decide is at the mercy of that which is. As such, two choices arise for the decider:that which might be deemed the taker, which, as a result of the said difference uses it to their advantage, or that of the leaver, who is responsible to treat the situation morally: that which is incapable of perceiving the situation must not be manipulated by that which is (and, of course, a multitude of moral ambiguities between these options). The ability to morally discern is itself the morally relevant difference between humans and nonhumans, if I am perceiving the question correctly.
I am having some difficulty following the intitial moments of your response. The final line, however, resonates with me: it is true that the capacity for autonomous moral judgment can serve to distinguish human adults from nonhumans (at least in most cases and as far as we know). The moral implications of that difference is what intrigues me. In my view, it obliges us to care more, not less, for other nonmoral yet still sentient beings.
Ah yes, indeed. I agree.
In the first few sentences, I was incorrectly asserting that humans no longer use survival skills. We most certainly still do: obviously, else we would not still be alive. What I was trying to imply was that we use our intellect more than things like initial responses like fight or flight, have the ability to use reason over emotion (not that the two are necessarily contradictory) and generally have sculpted the world instead of living in it, and as a result of this further rumination rather than impulse acting have been able to supersede our nonhuman co-inhabitants.
I agree completely that intellect demands more compassion of us, not justifies our exhibiting less, especially where other biological entities are concerned, and this is overlooked so incredibly often one wonders if the human species is not just a collection of infants in the lifetime of sentience. Often I hope this is the case--it gives us a long way to go.
Post a Comment