What’s the powerful argument to this?

[SkepticalScience]

Sorry for spamming the JREF boards this morning, but I had a bunch of questions this weekend! Anyway, I was reading an essay by Richard Dawkins this weekend that started by showing this hypothetical letter:

---------------------------------------------
Sir,
You appeal for money to save the gorillas. Very laudable, no doubt. But it doesn't seem to have occurred to you that there are thousands of human children suffering on the very same continent of Africa. There'll be time enough to worry about gorillas when we've taken care of every last one of the kiddies. Let's get our priorities right, please!
---------------------------------------------

He then reworks that letter to say this:

---------------------------------------------
Sir,
You appeal for money to save the gorillas. Very laudable, no doubt. But it doesn't seem to have occurred to you that there are thousands of aardvarks suffering on the very same continent of Africa. There'll be time enough to worry about gorillas when we've saved every last one of the aardvarks. Let's get our priorities right, please!
---------------------------------------------

He then continues to say this:

---------------------------------------------
This second letter could not fail to provoke the question: What's so special about aardvarks? A good question, and one to which we should require a satisfactory answer before we took the letter seriously. Yet the first letter, I suggest, would not for most people provoke the equivalent question: What's so special about humans? As I said, I don't deny that this question, unlike the aardvark question, very probably has a powerful answer.
---------------------------------------------

My question is, what is the powerful argument for the “specialness” of humans? Like Dawkins, I’m sure there is one too, but I am just not sure I know what it is.

Thanks!
SS

[Vorticity]

My question is, what is the powerful argument for the “specialness” of humans? Like Dawkins, I’m sure there is one too, but I am just not sure I know what it is.
It seems to me that we register confusion regarding the second letter but not the first due to the fact that we ourselves are human, and not necessarily due to any specialness of humans.

Imagine if gorillas could read. It looks to me like both letters would have the same impact for them.

Not that I disagree that humans have 'specialness', but I don't think that Dawkins' scenario in and of itself demonstrates anything other than the fact that humans are special in the opinion of humans.

[Darat]

...snip...

My question is, what is the powerful argument for the “specialness” of humans? Like Dawkins, I’m sure there is one too, but I am just not sure I know what it is.

Thanks!
SS

I actually don't think there is one unless you count survival as the reason for treating humans as special. In other words you are a human (I assume - sorry if I'm wrong) so you want to ensure you have more of a chance of surviving it's better for your chance of survival if humans can't be shoot like any other animal or used for food etc. so we act in such a way to prevent that i.e. we consider humans special.

Indeed I'd say our history actually shows that we don't have an innate sense that humans as a species are special, that sense of specialness seems to be reserved for our "family" it's just we've culturally been extended the meaning of family for quite some time.

[CurtC]

I think we do have an innate sense that humans as a species are special. It's just that the farther you get away from your immediate family, the less you're going to care. My son is extremely important to me to save. My relative's kids are very important, though not so much as my own. Down the list are my neighbors' kids, then kids in my city, country, then kids on the other side of the world. Down further are other species. I do care about other species, just not as much.

[Wire]

Every single gorilla is about 60000 times more special than you or me.

[SpaceFluffer]

Now, when you say 'special'...

[Soapy Sam]

I'm prepared to bet my genome is unique in the history of the universe.

I'm a threatened species.

Nuke the pandas! More bamboo for ME!

[Ziggurat]

My question is, what is the powerful argument for the “specialness” of humans? Like Dawkins, I’m sure there is one too, but I am just not sure I know what it is.

Let me suggest making a slightly different claim, namely that humans are special to humans. Put in those terms, it's really not so hard to figure out why that's the case. Similarly, I would expect gorillas to be special to gorillas, and aardvarks to be special to aardvarks.

[logical muse]

My question is, what is the powerful argument for the “specialness” of humans? Like Dawkins, I’m sure there is one too, but I am just not sure I know what it is.


Sentience? Theory of Mind? Or is it just that we mate with humans and hence want to keep some around?

[Beerina]

Sentience? Theory of Mind? Or is it just that we mate with humans and hence want to keep some around?

And there's nothing wrong with that. We're on the cusp of resurrecting extinct species, and of constructing our own shortly thereafter. Oops, I mean we have been able to do that for several years.

So what's so special about saving what old schoolers in the 21st century used to call "gorillas"?

[Eos of the Eons]

My question is, what is the powerful argument for the “specialness” of humans? Like Dawkins, I’m sure there is one too, but I am just not sure I know what it is.

Thanks!
SS

Use of tools, machinery, and the ability to worship something we cannot prove exists. We can be creative, abstract, and downright malicious.

Just the complexity of our brains compared to all others is what sets us apart. Factor in the other extremes, and how can we not be "special"?

We have yet to see if we can overcome that ultimate obstacle that may ensure our survival, or doom us to the looming fact that all other species have gone extinct. Well, all extinct species have gone extinct...:boxedin:

[Roboramma]

Eos, cool.
But by the above criterion many species are "special". Elephants are the largest land animal, they have their tusks and the trunks and their behaviors that are unique to them. They could call all these things special and suggest that this separates them from the 'animals'. What about our distinctness is non-arbitrary?

There are plenty of animals that have claims to being unique in some way. I wonder why we consider those things about us that may be unique to give us some moral superiority.
I think if we're going to answer that question somehow, we need to first answer this question: "Why is it wrong to do X to a human?" If we can know that, then we can ask, "Does species Y share that property in a meaningful way?"

Personally, I think that for many speices, gorillas included, I'd answer yes for many variations of X. Not all, however.
And for many other species I'd answer no for many variations of X. Again, not all, however.

[Darat]

Use of tools, machinery, and the ability to worship something we cannot prove exists. We can be creative, abstract, and downright malicious.


I'd say that apart from the worshiping then all the other special qualities you list can be found among other animals, and all of them are found in chimpanzees. (And perhaps elephants do worship the great trunk in the sky.. ;) )


Just the complexity of our brains compared to all others is what sets us apart. Factor in the other extremes, and how can we not be "special"?
...snip...

That isn't really a reason for us to be considered special, unless by special we just mean "extreme in some way"?

[Jyera]

The Key is the sentence "Let's get our priorities right, please!"

"Our" and "Priorities".

"our" is a partisan word. The stronger in the group shall win the debate and decide the "specialness"-attribute and thus settle the "priorities".

"our priority" indicate a common goal.

If the arguement happens in the "Club for protection of Gorilla, and disdian in human/aardvarks", we would all be able to easily identify the "specialness"

To answer "What's so special about humans?"
Just ask "Who am I?". And get your priorities and affiliation right.

[Darat]

The Key is the sentence "Let's get our priorities right, please!"...snip...

To answer "What's so special about humans?"
Just ask "Who am I?". And get your priorities and affiliation right.

I disagree - that just gives an answer for why I am special to me. It doesn't follow from that that I should regard other humans special, in fact if I use the "I'm me" as the bases for why I am special it means that others humans aren't special since they are not me.

[Rolfe]

To answer one part of the OP, which I don't think is the intended point in fact, I don't really agree with the proposition that everything else should go on the back burner until all human suffering is relieved. No spending on art, music, advanced scientific research, no space programme, no designer clothes or makeup or jewellery.... everything beyond necessities goes on somebody else's necessities until these are all provided for? The implications for culture and scientific advancement are just too horrendous. I'm for some degree of compromise.

But the real point being made isn't that, and it's a very valid one. Why favour our own species over others? I think it's to do with self-awareness. I think humans are self-aware at a level that other animals aren't, quite, in particular the ability to anticipate their own death, and the ability to rationalise the situation they are in and realise that it doesn't have to be like this. So if I saw a human in need, I'd empathise far more than with a cat or a gorilla in need. I'd feel sad, but I could cope with the idea of relieving the animal's suffering by euthanasia, if necessary, while the idea of killing a person just because help couldn't be found for them is anathema.

Rolfe.

[rwguinn]

Eos, cool.
But by the above criterion many species are "special". Elephants are the largest land animal, they have their tusks and the trunks and their behaviors that are unique to them. They could call all these things special and suggest that this separates them from the 'animals'. What about our distinctness is non-arbitrary?

There are plenty of animals that have claims to being unique in some way. I wonder why we consider those things about us that may be unique to give us some moral superiority.
I think if we're going to answer that question somehow, we need to first answer this question: "Why is it wrong to do X to a human?" If we can know that, then we can ask, "Does species Y share that property in a meaningful way?"

Personally, I think that for many speices, gorillas included, I'd answer yes for many variations of X. Not all, however.
And for many other species I'd answer no for many variations of X. Again, not all, however.

all exept the important quality that defines our uniqueness:
The ability and curiosity to ask "why are we unique" and expect answers...

[Roboramma]

all exept the important quality that defines our uniqueness:
The ability and curiosity to ask "why are we unique" and expect answers...
We're unique because we... think we're unique??

eta: Actually if you change that to: "we think we're unique because we think we're unique" then I'll agree with that. For what it's worth. ;)
Of course there are other more specific answers to why we think we're unique. Like because it's an attractive idea (and then, "Why do human minds find it to be an attractive idea?").

[Nick Bogaerts]

Because considering one another special is a mutually beneficial arrangement. Animals can only reciprocate such an arrangement to a lesser degree (Some more than others, which is why pets are more special than vermin)

[sphenisc]

I'd say that apart from the worshiping then all the other special qualities you list can be found among other animals, and all of them are found in chimpanzees. (And perhaps elephants do worship the great trunk in the sky.. ;) )



Elephants show signs of interest in dead elephants - the first step on the path to reverence/worship of ancestors?

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8209

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I'm prepared to bet my genome is unique in the history of the universe.

I'm a threatened species.

Nuke the pandas! More bamboo for ME!

NO!!! Nuke you! More pandmeat for ME!

[Blondin]

Aardvarks are special!

[Luke T.]

Every single gorilla is about 60000 times more special than you or me.

If it came down to me or the last gorilla on Earth, that gorilla's a goner.

[Darat]

If it came down to me or the last gorilla on Earth, that gorilla's a goner.

Unless you were unarmed and then (and I don't mean this disrespectfully) my money is on the Gorilla :D

[DrMatt]

This is starting to sound like the sort of jokes mathematicians tell among themselves.

[DrMatt]

Unless you were unarmed and then (and I don't mean this disrespectfully) my money is on the Gorilla :D

How did you GET your money onto it then?

[Eos of the Eons]

Eos, cool.
Elephants are the largest land animal, they have their tusks and the trunks and their behaviors that are unique to them.


Our uniqueness allows us to invent and fly a huge heavy machine. Let's see an elephant do that.

[Roboramma]

Our uniqueness allows us to invent and fly a huge heavy machine. Let's see an elephant do that.
So we are morally superior because we can build huge machines?

By the way, here's a link to the full text of the article Dawkins wrote, in case anyone is interested(it also appears in one of his books, maybe A Devil's Chaplain?):
http://articles.animalconcerns.org/ar-voices/archive/mind_gap.html

I think what he was opposing in it was the assumption without even thinking about it that humans are morally superior. That there is some huge divide between us and the rest of the animal kingdom.
I don't think there is one. There may be some differences between us and other animals that suggest different treatment in certain situations (for instance, I don't think we should let gorillas vote ;) ), but some blanket assumption that what is human is simply by it's nature necessarily more valuable than what is not, is, in my opinion, unsupportable.
And all the reasons given so far seem like post hoc rationalizations. "Here is something that is different about us from all other animals, maybe that's a good reason to treat them differently?"

To avoid confusion of my opinion I'll say it again, though - I do think there are some situations in which animals should be treated different from humans, but those things should be based on good reasons, not justifications. In one of my posts up-thread I gave what I think the criterion should be for determining that.

I note the point made often above that we treat other humans differently because we are human. I understand that point, I'd say that yes, that is exactly true.
But I don't think it's a good thing to base your morality upon. After all, racism could be justified in the same way. Without a morally meaningful distinction, it's not a case as to why we should treat others differently, just an explanation as to why we do.

[Eos of the Eons]

So we are morally superior because we can build huge machines?


No. We're unique.

[Jyera]

Originally Posted by Jyera :------------------
The Key is the sentence "Let's get our priorities right, please!"...snip...

To answer "What's so special about humans?"
Just ask "Who am I?". And get your priorities and affiliation right.
------------------------------------------------
I disagree - that just gives an answer for why I am special to me. It doesn't follow from that that I should regard other humans special, in fact if I use the "I'm me" as the bases for why I am special it means that others humans aren't special since they are not me.Well , it is you priorities and your decision to your affiliate.
And if I have that much ego, then only I am special (and good), and Others are not-special.

A less self-centred perspective is needed to accommdate a greater group-wide agreement of "specialness".

Question: Who am I ?
Answer: I'm a human? I'm an animal? I'm JREF member? Earthlings? OR.. how about this, I'm not a aardavak , but I'm one of the many aardavak-lover.
Or. I'm someone with a similar DNA as my child. Each answer leads to some affiliation. You

Many people can put down reasons for human to be special. The different reasons could include undeniable physical and mental attribute.

Perhaps some are looking for the most popular reason for specialness in human. Then it is simply a popularity survey.

[Jyera]

Moreover, I would say ...

Human are special ... because we are in the forefront of evolution.
And we have taken evolution of our species into an entirely different realm.
With the brain and society as the vehicle, we have frog leaped ahead to accelerate our evolution. Our body will not change too much physically, but our ideas, culture, philosophy, knowledge, believes, ingenuity are exploding.
Just look at the huge amount of cultural and material artifact.

Consider a hermit crab's habit of getting a shell from other's.
Did the hermit crab "evolved" and extra feature ?
What ever the answer, it is nothing compared to human.

[Jyera]

Our uniqueness allows us to invent and fly a huge heavy machine. Let's see an elephant do that.
Yes. I agree with Eos. Let see some competition.

Not that we are arrogant. But there is something very real and special happening all over the world.

[Eos of the Eons]

yeah, so special we blow (or chop) each other's heads off after labelling each other *evil*

If it weren't for the ivory poaching, I'd envy the elephants.

:cool:

[Roboramma]

No. We're unique.
Ah, I see. Well, in that case I agree. My bad. :)

[Eos of the Eons]

:D Hey, we all go there sometimes. You seen my posts in antivaxxers?

[Roboramma]

Moreover, I would say ...

Human are special ... because we are in the forefront of evolution.Jyera, what exactly does the phrase "in the forefront of evolution" mean? I get what you say about cultural evolution being a new thing (although I'd say it's not completley unique to humans, just a far stronger force in us than in other species).
Just looking to understand what the forefront of evolution could be.

[Eos of the Eons]

Well, I'm just guessing, but I think it kind of means we're at the end of a line of ancestors. Octopi are at an end of a line as well. So are Gorillas....

Hmmm. At the same time we are living during a time where we are not very taxed for food or resources compared to the past. We are able to diversify. There are all shapes and sizes of people, not to mention a whole lot of us. All kinds are surviving when they wouldn't have before. When we are faced with some hardship or disaster then there is a good chance some collection of humanity will survive with whatever traits are needed to get past the point of whatever disaster. Heck, some people can't get infected by HIV because of a mutation most of us don't have.

We are in the best shape possible right now to face an evolutionary stressor.

[Darat]

No. We're unique.

Is there any species on earth that claim doesn't apply to?

[Art Vandelay]

We're unique because we... think we're unique??

Unless you can show that there's another species that thinks that it is unique, then I think the answer is "yes".

[Jyera]

[/b]Jyera, what exactly does the phrase "in the forefront of evolution" mean? I get what you say about cultural evolution being a new thing (although I'd say it's not completley unique to humans, just a far stronger force in us than in other species).
Just looking to understand what the forefront of evolution could be.
Forefront literarily means ahead. Some will argue there is no such thing as being ahead in evolution. And that there are only fitness to survival. (not strong or better). I don't disagree.

But take note of the other words I used.
"Frog leaped" and "accelerated." , "brain ... as the vehicle"
"society as vehicle"

I feel human and their brain has reached and exceeded a critical-mass. Beyond which, any animal would have been able to use their brain in a fashion like human. Not just the mass, but also the way we use it.

So now the evolutionary changes start to happen in the brain. And human evolution accelerated in the mind. The new evolutionary trait are not physical. Eg. We grow new language, philosophy and even political beliefs to aids us as if we have new virtual distorted extra eye and limps. With our multiple invisible limps, we are growing to something like a FSM.

The other animal, have not reached that critical mass.
By the time they reach that, human would have had a run-away-headstart in terms of evolution. (and I don;t mean physical)

They are still racing car speeding on the runway of an airstrip, while our planes are already soaring. How fast can they catch up, when we hardly see any of them liftingoff, while we are speeding XXXkm/h in the sky?

Eos's End-of-line description of octopi and gorrilla does indicate that they have to have a breakthough evolution before they can leapfrog ahead.

Humans had done it. We're at the end of the line as a "racing car" and now we have "wings". Whether we are at the end-of-line as a "airplane" i'm not sure.

But I share the same kind of wonder, optimism and disgust as Eos have about our evolutionary status.
We creates our own sh*t-hole, intimately called society, in which we swim amongst lies, diseases, drugs, malice, ignorance, compassion and evolve to be more and more adaptable. We're in much better shape than the animals.

[SkepticalScience]

Interesting comments.

Reading a few of the comments made me think of another re-write of the same letter. Has the argument changed much, if the letter now read:

Sir,
You appeal for money to feed the hungry disabled children. Very laudable, no doubt. But it doesn't seem to have occurred to you that there are thousands of non-disabled children who are also hungry on the very same continent of Africa. There'll be time enough to worry about the hungry disabled children when we've fed every last one of the non-disabled children. Let's get our priorities right, please!

[yanit]

Now, when you say 'special'...

Alright, I think this was said in jest but ... seriously people, define what you mean when you say "special." I think this is the root of much misunderstanding in this thread.

Reading the original essay, my understanding is that Dawkins meant "special" to mean "greater than" or "more important". Not "different", not "unique" (because, as Darat said, every organism can claim uniqueness) ... but more deserving of life.

The speciesist assumption that lurks here is very simple. Humans are humans and gorillas are animals. There is an unquestioned yawning gulf between them such that the life of a single human child is worth more than the lives of all the gorillas in the world. The 'worth' of an animal's life is just its replacement cost to its owner--or, in the case of a rare species, to humanity. But tie the label Homo sapiens even to a tiny piece of insensible, embryonic tissue, and its life suddenly leaps to infinite, uncomputable value.

*Ding!*
Round Two! :p

[Eos of the Eons]

Is there any species on earth that claim doesn't apply to?
What other species can build a plane a fly it? Each species may have some sort of unique trait, but no others have our intelligence. Doesn't make us better, but it sets us apart and can cause us to be quite arrogant.

[CurtC]

This is starting to sound like the sort of jokes mathematicians tell among themselves.Is that joke anything like The Aristocrats?

[Eos of the Eons]

Alright, I think this was said in jest but ... seriously people, define what you mean when you say "special." I think this is the root of much misunderstanding in this thread.

Reading the original essay, my understanding is that Dawkins meant "special" to mean "greater than" or "more important". Not "different", not "unique" (because, as Darat said, every organism can claim uniqueness) ... but more deserving of life.



*Ding!*
Round Two! :p
Hmmm. Ethics. Tough stuff.

I don't think any one thing is "more deserving" of life. When it comes to HAVING to choose one over another, we will always pick based on variables at the time. No two situations are ever the same.

Let's say you have to save one of two. Your dad or your dog. If you HATE your dad because of something (say he molested you), then you'll take the dog. If you love your dad, you'll probably let the dog slip away.

It just depends on the situation.