Lesser Animals?

[Ethos]

A comment in the animal cruelty thread referred to non-humans as "lesser animals". This curious qualification brings up a philosophical question I thought deserved its own analysis.

What exactly is it that makes non-humans "lesser" members of the animal kingdom? There is a sort of spectrum in this case, where for instance a horse might be considered less of a "lesser animal" than a cow. Are these moral (and they are inherently tied to what we consider moral treatment of animals) labels altered if we find a creature has greater intelligence or emotional capacity than previously known?

Ethos

[Lumpen Prole]

Humans are but a tiny portion of a twig of a twig on the tree of life. We simply refer to all other organisms as "lesser" because we have always tended to view the world through a lense of egocentricity. Relative to other animals, we have evolved more complex and "better" cognitive capacities. Our "superior" brains have come with a form of consciousness not yet known to exist in any other organism, and with that characteristic has come an exaggerated egocentricity that has manifests itself in species-ism, among other things. Hawks have far superior vision relative to our own species, but lack the capacity to formally realize this fact and are unable to conceptualize abstractions such as superiority, morality, etc. I will have more to add to this discussion later.

[Ethos]

Humans are but a tiny portion of a twig of a twig on the tree of life. We simply refer to all other organisms as "lesser" because we have always tended to view the world through a lense of egocentricity. Relative to other animals, we have evolved more complex and "better" cognitive capacities. Our "superior" brains have come with a form of consciousness not yet known to exist in any other organism, and with that characteristic has come an exaggerated egocentricity that has manifests itself in species-ism, among other things. Hawks have far superior vision relative to our own species, but lack the capacity to formally realize this fact and are unable to conceptualize abstractions such as superiority, morality, etc. I will have more to add to this discussion later.

Anthropomorphism is also a common human activity, and with this in mind I wonder if a hawk hundreds of feet off the ground might not actually consider itself superior to a (perhaps smaller) human standing below it, assuming it does not know the human species well enough to be apprehensive.

Though while part of the question is why do we harbor the concept of "superiority" relative to other species, the more important (in my mind) question is by what reasoning do we determine the relative status of varying animals. Human ego is without a doubt the basis for this thread, but the real debate is over how we classify one animal as more or less important than another.

Do we then take intelligence alone into account? Dolphins would no doubt be near the top of most peoples' lists compared to ants or even the hawk. Or do we perhaps imagine some animals (over others) have a "soul" that makes them worthy of our recognition?

Ethos

[Ethos]

On another note, it is really egocentrism we are talking about, or something more primal? Could it be argued that feelings or thoughts of superiority over another species is necessary for consumption of that species? I that case, it may be that egocentrism isn't uniquely human after all.

Ethos

[Dangerrmouse]

I suggest that the "lesser" animals' relative status relies on a combination of their usefulness to us, in terms of pets, work, or food, (not necessarily in that order) their visual appeal or otherwise, and our perception of the threat they offer to us.

[Ethos]

I suggest that the "lesser" animals' relative status relies on a combination of their usefulness to us, in terms of pets, work, or food, (not necessarily in that order) their visual appeal or otherwise, and our perception of the threat they offer to us.

I would add spirituality to the mix, making the ultimate determination less pragmatic overall. For some cultures, lesser species that are not especially appealing still enjoy unique protections.

Ethos

[mataj]

They are "lesser", because they are not us.

[Lumpen Prole]

On another note, it is really egocentrism we are talking about, or something more primal? Could it be argued that feelings or thoughts of superiority over another species is necessary for consumption of that species? I that case, it may be that egocentrism isn't uniquely human after all.

Ethos

I would agree that it is not a uniquely human quality. What is unique, however, is that centrism manifests itself. Humans are not special. We do not have absolute consciousness while other animals absolutely do not, for example. I think our own ego- and species-centrism is rooted in our preference for favoring the in-group. It may very well be a survival instinct or some such thing. Any animals will naturally seek to preserve its genes over other individuals within its species, and we would likewise expect members of a species to think of the species itself as "better" than other species for similar reasons.

But yes, I think in some sense it is necessary for us to harbor feelings of superiority in order to consume other animals. We have no problems eating pork (minus the vegetarians among us, which I might add is a direction I have been moving for about a year), even though pigs are highly intelligent animals. In fact, in evaluating whether or not it is morally permissible to kill and eat a pig, I think we should aks ourselves this: would it be morally permissible to kill and eat a human with severe mental retardation? The point is that animals with the intelligence of a pig, dolphin, chimp, etc. can easily be said contain the capacity for "higher" cognitive functions than humans with certain mental handicaps. If intelligence is the basis by which we derive our superiority to other animals, then it would follow that there would be nothing wrong with serving a mentally retarded person alongside our pork chops at dinner.

[Lumpen Prole]

They are "lesser", because they are not us.

Yes, I think this is essentially what it reduces to. We even see this sort of thing within our own species. Again, we see our species - that is, the in-group - as superior to all out-groups. We also form in-groups within our own species. For example, white slave-owners would have views their African slaves as an out-group. This should be rather obvious, given that Africans were considered sub-human, or at the very least "lesser" than their white counterparts. The same in-group/out-group dichotomy can be used to look at other phenomena such as sexism.

[Ethos]

But yes, I think in some sense it is necessary for us to harbor feelings of superiority in order to consume other animals. We have no problems eating pork (minus the vegetarians among us, which I might add is a direction I have been moving for about a year), even though pigs are highly intelligent animals. In fact, in evaluating whether or not it is morally permissible to kill and eat a pig, I think we should aks ourselves this: would it be morally permissible to kill and eat a human with severe mental retardation? The point is that animals with the intelligence of a pig, dolphin, chimp, etc. can easily be said contain the capacity for "higher" cognitive functions than humans with certain mental handicaps. If intelligence is the basis by which we derive our superiority to other animals, then it would follow that there would be nothing wrong with serving a mentally retarded person alongside our pork chops at dinner.

Except of course doing so would be an inherent disruption to the continuation of the human species. If we begin to essentially weed out human beings in a subjective manner (just how disabled would a person need to be, for example?), it's reasonable to assume the integrity of that society and therefore the survivability of the group is at risk.

Of course this doesn't stop us from removing humans from other groups in a similar manner, something which may tie nicely into the discussion. Our propensity to label other human beings as something less than human - "cockroaches" for the generic terrorist is one instance - allows us to psychological distance ourselves from what might be the otherwise untenable act of killing them. All acts of aggression seem to be based on the dehumanization of the enemy. The same could be said for considering animals to be inferior. After all if we truly understood all other animal species to be on a parallel with our own, maintaining our modern lives would be out of the question.

Ethos

[Lumpen Prole]

Except of course doing so would be an inherent disruption to the continuation of the human species. If we begin to essentially weed out human beings in a subjective manner (just how disabled would a person need to be, for example?), it's reasonable to assume the integrity of that society and therefore the survivability of the group is at risk.

Of course this doesn't stop us from removing humans from other groups in a similar manner, something which may tie nicely into the discussion. Our propensity to label other human beings as something less than human - "cockroaches" for the generic terrorist is one instance - allows us to psychological distance ourselves from what might be the otherwise untenable act of killing them. All acts of aggression seem to be based on the dehumanization of the enemy. The same could be said for considering animals to be inferior. After all if we truly understood all other animal species to be on a parallel with our own, maintaining our modern lives would be out of the question.

Which was basically my point. I can't think of anyone who would argue that killing and eating a mentally disabled person is justified. And I'm talking about someone disabled to a degree where he or she would be considered to have "lower" cognitive abilities than an animal such as a pig. And if one is not justified in consuming that type of person, how would one justify bacon? And like you said, killings that occur within our own species typically involve some sort of dehumanization. This parallels with what I was referring to as the out-group. The Tutsi's considered another group, the Hutu, to be cockroaches, for example. But these acts involving dehumanization occur within our own species. When we're talking about other animals there is no need for dehumanization to occur... because they are by definition not human.

[Ethos]

Another viewpoint:


In Defense of Human Exceptionalism
By Wesley J. Smith

Thursday, July 5, 2007, 5:57 AM
Tearing humans off the pedestal of exceptionalism is all the rage today among academics, philosophers, and other assorted members of the intelligentsia. The war against unique human worth—of which many remain unaware—is being mounted on many fronts:

• “Personhood Theory” in bioethics claims that granting humans unique moral status based simply on being human is “speciesism,” and hence membership in the moral community should be based on being a “person”—for example, possessing certain cognitive capacities (whether animal, human, space alien, or machine), such as being self-aware over time.
• The animal rights/liberation movement also seeks to knock us off the pedestal in the cause of elevating animals to equal moral worth with people. Thus, many liberationists urge that we base a being’s value on “painience,” that is, the capacity to experience pain. Since cows feels pain just as humans do, bovines are people too, and hence ranching cattle is as evil as slavery.
• Radical environmentalists and deep ecologists claim humans are a vermin species afflicting the living Gaia and that our population should be cut drastically so that earth can return to an Eden-like state.
• Meanwhile, the philosophical materialists proclaim that humans are merely so much meat on the hoof and, indeed, that species distinctions are fictional given our many shared genes with animals and all life having evolved out of the same primordial soup. This means, as novelist and journalist John Darnton put it in the San Francisco Chronicle in 2005, “We are all of us, dogs and barnacles, pigeons and crabgrass, the same in the eyes of nature, equally remarkable and equally dispensable.”


http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=790

[Kong]

What exactly is it that makes non-humans "lesser" members of the animal kingdom? EthosThey are lesser because we are at the top of the food chain. Everything else is somewhere below. The human species dominates the earth. We have opposable thumbs and the gift of creative communication.

We have the possibility of survival beyond that of all other living beings. The survival of any other species may depend upon what we humans do. Our technological and scientific advancements are the key to surviving the types of catastrophes that have caused 99% of all other life forms to become extinct.

I am atheist but for you religious types I would say man and women were created in God’s image; we are the sons and daughters of God.

[Kong]

As for “painience” I argue that this kind of thinking is speciesist (like racist). I’ll dare you say the pain of a cow is more important than the pain of an insect or even of an ameba. I kind of joking here but really, how can you pass this kind of judgment about pain?

Some people would argue that plants have feelings and feel pain. Shouldn’t we stop eating them too?

If we reduce the human being to the relative worth of all other animals that’s okay I guess. We can see that it's a “dog eat dog world.” If we pit humans against other life forms we still come out ahead. Life in its primitive form is a struggle to survive and thrive, humans too posses this quality. Why stress over it? Its natural and natural is good. Mother nature on the other hand is a (rhymes with stitch).

[Atticus]

Maybe the Linnaean taxonomy system (kingdom phylum class order family genus species) can help illustrate our prejudices. We like animals closest to us on the taxonomy: primates are our closest relatives, then mammals, then "chordata" or animals with spinal tubes, and so forth.

[Kong]

Maybe ... We like animals closest to us on the taxonomyThat's right to some degree. We also like animals that we keep as pets especially: dogs, cats, birds, reptiles, fish and insects.

[Ethos]

They are lesser because we are at the top of the food chain. Everything else is somewhere below. The human species dominates the earth. We have opposable thumbs and the gift of creative communication.

Our position in the food chain may seem like an obvious answer, but I don't believe it is good enough to explain the complexity of our perceptions in this case. Belief in species superiority has a deeper instinctual and cultural significance. A diver in open water is certainly not the dominant oceanic figure in his current state, though he may still feel that way. Many cultures have considered themselves as equal to animals, sometimes with deference to "sacred" species.


We have the possibility of survival beyond that of all other living beings. The survival of any other species may depend upon what we humans do. Our technological and scientific advancements are the key to surviving the types of catastrophes that have caused 99% of all other life forms to become extinct.


I wouldn't necessarily make this statement with any form of certainty. We have yet to experience the truly catastrophic occurrence of a large meteor or comet impact. I believe we would find our technology of little preventative use. Even post-impact I would question whether survivors could successfully find and operate the items necessary for long-term underground survival.

Ethos

[Lumpen Prole]

Our place on the food chain should not be used to evaluate whether or not we have ethical considerations toward other animals. By this line of reasoning, it is perfectly fine to kill and eat animals "lesser" than us; that is, lower than us on the food chain. But one can easily invision a scenario where some other animal is in a dominant position in terms of the food chain hierarchy. Are you still at the top of the food chain when swimming in the ocean? When confronting a mother grizzly completely unarmed? Stranded in the Savanna as a lion pride approaches? In fact, when such predators kill humans we often hunt down and kill the individual responsible for no reason other than it killed a human. But under this "food-chain logic" it would seem that such animals were justified in their agressive behavior.

The point is that mankind has effectively removed itself from any meaningful place in a natural food chain. We define technology and modern human society to not be a part of the natural order of things. And just for the record, we have not caused 99% of species to go extinct. 99% of all species that have ever existed are currently extinct, which is what I assume Kong was referring to. Although it is true that background extinction rates are currently higher than any point known in the fossil record.

As for “painience” I argue that this kind of thinking is speciesist (like racist). I’ll dare you say the pain of a cow is more important than the pain of an insect or even of an ameba. I kind of joking here but really, how can you pass this kind of judgment about pain?

Some people would argue that plants have feelings and feel pain. Shouldn’t we stop eating them too?

Yes, I can say that the pain of a cow is more important than that of an insect. Insects are not sentient.

[Ethos]

Yes, I can say that the pain of a cow is more important than that of an insect. Insects are not sentient.

Curious. Even assuming insects are not sentient, how is the impact of pain related to the sentience of a species?

Ethos

[Lumpen Prole]

I'm confused. Are you asking how the sensation of pain is related to an organism's ability to feel and distinguish between sensations such as pleasure and pain?

[Ethos]

I'm confused. Are you asking how the sensation of pain is related to an organism's ability to feel and distinguish between sensations such as pleasure and pain?

I'm questioning the degree of sentience versus pain. Must an organism be fully sentient to feel pain, or does partial sentience result in some unknown level of pain? And on a further note, despite the definition, can we assume non-sentience means an organism does not feel pain at all, thus reducing the apparent agony of a dying spider to simple motor reflex?

I understand the status of being a sentient being may not lend itself to partiality (you are either sentient, or you are not), however I'm not certain that claim can be made. Taking your example of mental retardation, one could certainly make the case that another human being is not in fact "sentient", but I would hesitate to make this type of 100% determination.

Ethos

[Kong]

Yes, I can say that the pain of a cow is more important than that of an insect. Insects are not sentient.I believe insects are sentient beings. Ants for example respond to pain, appear to feel anxiety and live in complex communities. Ants are aware of their own dead and collect their dead in a communal grave yard of sorts. Ants communicate with each other and distinguish their community from others of their species. In many aspects they have more similarities to humans than do cows.

Ants go to war, store food and take on various duties for the good of the community. I don’t believe that the same can be said for cows. Cows are big, dumb animals that on some levels display less sentient behavior than ants.

[lawman]

Another viewpoint:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=790
Interesting article, though the author's "defense" seems largely to amount to indignant grumbling that he should have to defend "what used to be considered the self-evident truth of human exceptionalism."

Of course, many things once considered self-evident aren't true at all, and his logic doesn't improve much from that point. The summary of things he finds objectionable is interesting; as a longtime science fiction reader, I'm astonished that the first ("...granting humans unique moral status based simply on being human is “speciesism,” and hence membership in the moral community should be based on being a “person”—for example, possessing certain cognitive capacities (whether animal, human, space alien, or machine), such as being self-aware over time") would be considered controversial in any way at all, since I can't imagine any plausible argument for discriminating against other beings with sentience comparable to our own.

The other claims cited touch on somewhat different aspects of the question, and he characterizes them rather too casually; good debate involves acknowledging and countering your opponents' best arguments, after all, not just their weakest. A recognition of the moral weight of pain is not the same as a claim that all organisms are equal, for instance. It may be true that a negligible fringe of "Radical environmentalists and deep ecologists claim humans are a vermin species afflicting the living Gaia and that our population should be cut drastically so that earth can return to an Eden-like state," but far greater numbers of non-radical environmentalists point out the uncomfortable but unavoidable (yet here unmentioned) fact that the planet does not have unlimited resources and thus does have a carrying capacity, a limit to the sustainable population (of humans or anything else). And a philosophical claim that we are "all the same in the eyes of nature" is, frankly, indisputable, but kind of moot as well, unless one is basing one's entire moral calculus on nature's (nonexistent) intentions.

The author makes a valid point about how it's "ironic that a report in the science pages of the New York Times would discuss souls respectfully, especially given that the existence or nonexistence of the soul isn’t a matter that science can measure, test, or duplicate," but apparently fails to realize that taking "souls" out of the equation (as one quite properly should) hinders his position rather more than it helps.

He also claims it's "given that human exceptionalism is... the philosophical underpinning for human rights," then quotes Mortimer Adler to support the point... but inasmuch as any number of other moral philosophers (John Rawls and Peter Singer spring quickly to mind) would dispute that "underpinning," for a wide range of reasons, it's hardly a given.

At the end, all we're left with is his claim that his view should be "self-evident." Of course, we see in the credits that he's a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_institute), so his credibility is pretty much shot from the get-go, really.

[heel31ok]

From a Biblical perspective man was created to have dominion over the animals .This automatically places them above animals. Also with humans gaining life from the very breath of God while animals were just created shows the connection between God and man that the animals do not share. I do not have a problem with having consideration for animals and compassion or what not. This is in the context of a steward taking responsibility and caring for all that is in his domain. But in the end man was created higher than the animals.

[Dangerrmouse]

So some animals are more equal than others?