Comments for The Left is not progressive when it comes to non-humans at http://www.thescavenger.net , comment 1 to 4 out of 4 comments http://www.thescavenger.net Thu, 09 Sep 2010 13:23:37 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thescavenger.net/animals/the-left-is-not-progressive-when-it-comes-to-non-humans.html#comment-122 Robin, I never claimed that we have "no basis for applying different standards" to nonhuman animals; indeed, as my article suggested, we don't even apply the same standards to ALL human animals because of differences in intelligence, etc. Moral agency matters, sometimes, and humans are treated differently accordingly. Of course nonhuman animals ought to be treated "differently" than say you and I. That is a [i]straw man[/i] argument. But on matters of inclusion in the moral community, intelligence, or moral agency do not matter as we show time and again with our inclusion of humans who are equally "un-intelligent", or non-moral agents. My argument concerns itself with our principled objection to causing harm, and why we exclude nonhuman animals, who can equally be harmed, from the reach of this principle. The thesis, if you will, is this: anthropocentrism has simply been a convenient tool to include minority groups; however, most fundamentally, what truly concerns the Left (and Right) are issues of harm, and since that's the operative principle (causing harm is bad), our exclusion of nonhuman animals amounts to a prejudice. Therefore, we should drop the anthropocentrism because speciesism is no more [i]morally[/i] justifiable (because that is what anthropocentrism would mean) than racism or sexism. Your argument again assumes that these "special" human qualities track along the species barrier. As I've shown, [i]they clearly do not[/i]. Therefore, a "strong" animal rights position doesn't rely on anthropocentrism at all: by definition, if we consider moral agency as an important factor in this discussion, humans are not "unique" or the "center of Nature" at all because we [i]aren't all[/i] moral agents. Now,[i] I never[/i] claimed that anti-racism was "universal", but that premise doesn't need to be factually true for my argument to have grounds to stand on. You believe, Robin, and so does the Left, that excluding someone from the moral community because they are non-white is morally wrong. Whether that's objective or not, it doesn't matter. Therefore, on that same logic, to be consistent, basing the exclusion on species membership, which is merely another biological characteristic, is equally morally wrong. - Alex Melonas Sun, 14 Feb 2010 13:29:32 +0100 http://www.thescavenger.net/animals/the-left-is-not-progressive-when-it-comes-to-non-humans.html#comment-113 Alex -- my response to your article was specifically about the contradiction in your saying that humans have no basis for applying different standards to human animals and non-human animals, because anthropocentrism is a "convenient tool" with no factual basis. Your latest response confirms this contradiction, because you argue that humans know the difference between right and wrong, whereas animals do not, and should therefore behave differently. I'm not suggesting that humans, by virtue of accepted social norms, shouldn't know better than to harm animals -- I'm merely saying it's ridiculous to say that a "strong" animal rights position doesn't involve a degree of anthropocentrism. Furthermore, while I of course agree that violence, racism etc. are considered morally wrong IN OUR SOCIETY, your argument is not universal -- it's a culturocentric approach that, once again, is based on social norms. - Robin Sat, 13 Feb 2010 18:50:02 +0100 http://www.thescavenger.net/animals/the-left-is-not-progressive-when-it-comes-to-non-humans.html#comment-97 Robin, There is a lot in your comment that needs a response. So please stay with me. We live in a world composed of moral agents, that is, those of us who understand moral concepts, hold principles, understand "right" and "wrong"; and moral patients, that is, those who have moral claims against moral agents (you and I) but who are, themselves, [i]not[/i] moral agents. Now, and this is extremely important to note, this division [i]does not track along the species barrier[/i]: nonhuman animals are not moral agents; but many, many [i]human animals[/i], babies, the mentally handicapped, those who have suffered certain brain injuries, the senile, for example, are also not moral agents. We include these latter non-moral agents, the human ones, in the moral community (they are moral patients), while we exclude the nonhuman ones. The question is, why? What you've done is appealed to nature to justify this distinction. Animals kill and eat other animals, therefore, you and I should be justified in doing so as well. But that doesn't follow logically or ethically because we are moral agents, other animals are not. Your appeal, then, is fundamentally flawed because it assumes [i]a)[/i] that we should justify our actions based on those of other animals and [i]b)[/i] that we should be governed by instinct -- and that is a "good" or justified thing. To [i]a)[/i] I would ask, Why don't we similarly justify our actions based on what the mentally handicapped do? Because we recognize that they are not capable of understanding "right" and "wrong", but we are. Our entire system of justice is predicated on this distinction between those who are moral agents and those who [i]aren't[/i] moral agents. The reasoning is similarly flawed when applied to what nonhuman animals do: they are not moral agents; therefore, appealing to what they do doesn't work as a matter of morality. I could ask, lions regularly commit infanticide. Should humans be able to do so as well? If you say no, then your appeal to the "laws of nature" begs the question. Your second assumption would suggest that our other "instincts" should likewise be morally acceptable. What about violence, or out-grouping prejudices (that is, racism)? These are clearly grounded in "instinct". There is no denying that. However, I sincerely doubt that you would find them reasonable ethical justifications for the ardent racist: "Well, it is just instinct." Because we are moral agents Robin, we cannot ethically appeal to "instinct", or "nature", or "evolution" or any other "fact". [i]That[/i] is fallacious; it is actually called the "is-ought" fallacy because you are deriving a moral proposition from a factual assertion, but that doesn't follow, logically. For if it did, imagine what else we could justify. Males of our species have evolved to use sexual aggression to the point of rape to ensure procreation. That is a "fact". Therefore, by your reasoning here, we could derive a moral concept: rape is moral. That is clearly wrong! Robin, by whatever rational criterion you appeal to that justifies the inclusion of human moral patients in the moral community, it will follow that nonhuman animals should likewise be included. - Alex Melonas Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:36:29 +0100 http://www.thescavenger.net/animals/the-left-is-not-progressive-when-it-comes-to-non-humans.html#comment-88 Dear Alex, I admire your principled, consistent approach to an issue you clearly feel strongly about; however, I feel that your argument falls prey to the same problem you identify in alternative approaches to animal rights. Specifically, you decry an "anthropocentric" approach to animal rights, arguing that human beings should apply the same standards to animals as they apply to other humans and should not eat animals if we don't eat each other, etc.. However, this behavior isn't even typical of animals -- there are plenty of animal species that do not consume each other, but do consume other animal species. Is this injustice? To say that human animals should defy this behavior, which other animals themselves exhibit, is applying a different standard. Furthermore, to say that the fact that humans have advanced cognitive abilities, and thus should be able to defy instinct and make the choice to eschew an omnivorous diet, is anthropocentric. You assume that exclusively-human concepts of morality, equality, and the inherent value of life trump the laws of nature that all other species abide by. In reality, we do not live in a society of absolutes. We construct norms that are convenient for us, many of which subscribe to instinctual human-animal behaviors. Your attempt to codify these behaviors using rigorous standards of moral and social acceptability is premised on a fallacious, artificial construct. - Robin Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:42:07 +0100