<p>I’d like to respond to Dan, who has been in the midst of a conversation with Dudley on this blog. I am copying Dan’s last comment where he quotes Dudley, which I have put in italics, and then gives his response. If you struggle with the lack of context, you can see the entire conversation here.
“How are humans being classified as non-animals in Social Studies class?”
By teaching that animals have long been used to, say, work in the fields, regardless of their choice. Doing the same thing to humans is usually presented as wrong, thus making a distinction between animals and humans. The double message is that humans both are and are not animals.
“No one is being made to make ethical statements based on science in school.”
I don’t agree with that in all cases. I suspect that some would like ethical statements based on science to be made in schools. Within the context of this blog, I understand people to have been attempting to base ethical statements on science.
I agree that faith(s) can be discussed in school. I disagree that it should be taught. Perhaps this has changed, but when I was in school, slavery was presented as wrong. I think this is a faith-based teaching.
Do you see humans as animals? If yes, is it wrong to own animals as pets or use them for work against their obvious choice?
One of the themes on this blog that I’m interested in is: Assuming a purely materialistic universe, is there any way, based solely on the physical evidence that we can observe, to build a moral or ethical system that is not relative to the individual? I understand Noell to be saying yes, there is, and I disagree. If you haven’t done so already, you may want to check out Noell’s post: http://www.agnosticmom.com/2006/08/02/evolutionary-psychology-and-materialism-as-a-world-view/ and my response, which is approx #12.
I will now quote Dan in italics and then make my response.
“The double message is that humans both are and are not animals.”
I will agree with this statement. Humans are animals. And at the same time, humans are not animals. The statements only contradict because of semantics. The truth is, we evolved from animals, we are part of the animal kingdom. We share many similiarities with animals. We are animals.
And yet, we evolved a few other capabilities that distinguish us from animals. The greatest factor in this is the human development of advanced language. It is language that allowed us to form the communities that we have, allowed us to develop a capacity for empathy, allowed us to have an awareness of others, allowed us to have some choices beyond our instincts, allowed us to think about ourselves and evaluate.
Humans are the only animals we know of that can act against even our greatest instinct, which is to spread our genes (procreation). We have, for example, invented birth control. Daniel Dennett likes to point out this fact as he explains how language has made the human species unlike any other animal.
(Note to Dan: If you really want to understand this viewpoint, Daniel Dennet, atheist philosopher who knows his science, is the person to read or listen to.)
“Within the context of this blog, I understand people to have been attempting to base ethical statements on science.”
There is a distinction to be made here. Science must do its investigating and be kept wholly separate from ethics. Learning that nature selects that which is “most fit,” for example, does not mean it is ethical for humans to favor those most fit and allow to die those who are less able. Humans must make decisions on ethics from a philosophical stand-point. But many of the findings in science can direct us to a greater understanding of how things work, giving better clarity and accuracy to our philosophy about ethics.
For example, it will take science to better understand what is going on when someone is in a vegetative state. Science does not tell us whether it is ethical or not to take someone off life-support. But it might tell us whether someone has any chance for survival, whether there is any level of consiousness, whether there exists any pain or desire within the person. We can then take the scientific evidence to help us decide the ethics of whether to leave a person on life support or take them off. Science gives us the information we need. It does not give us the ethics. That is why, yes, we have discussed a link between science and ethics on this blog. And yes, I would submit that scientific findings are crucial information as we make choices in ethics. But there is still a vast separation between the two. Science gives us factual information. Ethics must derive from philosophical discussion with the facts at hand.
“Perhaps this has changed, but when I was in school, slavery was presented as wrong. I think this is a faith-based teaching.”
It does not take faith in a being that no one has seen to come to the conclusion that enslaving someone who desires freedom is wrong. Faith and ethics have nothing to do with each other.
Do you see humans as animals? If yes, is it wrong to own animals as pets or use them for work against their obvious choice?
This is an example of where scientific progress may shape our ethics on treatment of animals. It seems that my dog is in pure bliss living with us, even with our rules that he not leave the house without us. If it were to be discovered that dogs are unhappy as domesticated pets, that they have a will and desire currently unknown to us, then I would conclude that it is unethical to keep them. It’s not about the fact that they are animals (as we are, too). It has only to do with their ability to be content or “happy,” as far as animals can be happy. It appears that dogs are happy as pets. It is unethical to treat animals with cruelty, even if they are animals.
I do not allow my kids to cage up wild insects, as much as they would like to, because I know insects have a need to be free.
Cows were bred to live the lives they do. As far as we can tell, cows have no need to run free and pursue other interests in the wild because they were not bred to desire that. But, if it were discovered through science, that cows were, in fact, unfulfilled and depressed on the farm, it would become a matter of ethics whether we keep them there or not. Arizona just dealt with these issues politically as we passed a law that farmers give more space to pregnant cows and calves raised for veal (previously they had no room to even turn around).
Humans are animals that are extremely different from all other animals. Our particular difference requires we have more autonomy in order to be happy. Other non-human animals just don’t have as many needs for personal fulfillment as we do because they did not evolve in the direction we did.
So, I hope you see, Dan, that there is nothing contradictory here with the view of humans as animals. And there is nothing shady in terms of the relationship between science and ethics.
