| It seems to me we are all agreed that each extant creature is here because it has the ability to survive in the conditions it has faced so far: what has been called its "special talent" has allowed this.
I think Magrus original point was about the extent to which it is legitimate to continue to change the face of the world to the detriment of other species (and maybe our own) because that is possible for us, due to our "special talent".
A second strand seems to be about the relative value of the "special talents"; and how we would come to a conclusion about that. By implication this speaks to the relative value of species as such, perhaps?
Thirdly, if we can answer the second question we seem to be asking how the conclusion impacts on the approach to the first question?
I do not put these questions in any particular order, either of importance or even of logical sequence. I am only trying to tease out some of the threads so I can see what we are talking about. I am sure I have missed other important questions which are also embedded.
To comment a little on the questions I have raised: I have already made it plain that I do not see any logical reason to see the human "special talent" as superior to that of any other species which is still here. To that extent I think I agree with Magrus. I wonder what criteria should be used?
Physical criteria would have to be related to survival and spread, surely? And I am attracted by longevity of the species also. These measures show that our "talent" is effective. But there are insects who could legitmately claim the same thing, I understand, and so it does not seem to me to be decisive. Again, it is true we can dominate other species so that we determine their lives almost wholly. But when you look at the insect world, or even at rats this is not true. It is possible that this "talent" will lead us to destroy ourselves, and the last (maybe frivolous) doomsday thing I read suggested that cockroaches might survive where we would not. It hasn't happened so we cannot say, but I do not think that the superiority of our adaptive advantage is demonstrated, and indeed I think the time has been far too short to even begin to judge
Moral criteria have been raised also. Mankind's special talent is indeed related to the ability to communicate well; to make choices and to accept moral responsibility and abstract thought etc. Some here also introduce religious concepts. Does that make us superior in any way? I tend to think it makes us different but all species are different from each other. I am a bit confused about what is meant by superior. I do not agree with Magrus that animals make true moral choices as we do, though of course I cannot prove it. But neither can I accept they are robots, at least not at the level of vertebrates.
Primates seem to be more similar to us the more they are studied, and certainly there are apes which are more sophisticated than young children in that sense. Of course it is correct that they cannot reach the level of sophistication which the young child has as potential; but despite Lestat's view (as I understand it) that does not really answer the question why we should afford "the right to life" to a young child or a mentally impaired person but not to an ape. So far as I can see an animal values its life greatly, as I do. It is possible that it fights for its life through instinct and has no real wish for personal survival. But I cannot know that. Its reaction when threatened is the same as a human's so it seems a little odd to assume its motives are different, in the absence of any possible evidence. Again I bring this to the level of the individual and I know that some do not accept that is legitimate. All I can say is that only individuals die.
Another thing which has occurred to me is that I am a bit confused by what seems to me to be a conflation of concepts. Magrus and others seem to be talking about what is "good" when they refer to things like senseless violence, greed etc, and present that as evidence that man is not superior. And the question of legitimacy does raise that issue. Others seem to be focussing not on "good" so much as morally "right", when they talk about putting human beings before animals. Is it possible that this is part of the confusion?  |