jla@usl.UUCP (Joseph L Arceneaux) (02/05/85)
I'm happy to see some responses to my initial question. I think the topic a most interesting one that needs to be addressed (at least for me) and I appreciate attempts to help me explore the issue. Also, thank you Ken Arndt for your support. Following are my replies to those who have responded. Forgive me if I mess up any names. Ashby writes: > ... For me, the difference > is that man possesses a soul, and animals do not. Thus even the > least intelligent human (however that is measured) is inherently > more "valuable" than the most intelligent "lower" animal. But what exactly is a soul? I have before heard this term used in a rather self-defining context; "What is a soul?" "It's what separates us from the animals." I would contend that for most people such is about all the meaning of the word they posess. If I were to attempt a more solid interpretation, I would say that effectively, "soul" may be equated with "consciousness". But then, what is consciousness? I would maintain that animals too posess what is commonly termed consciousness. Don Steiny writes: > It is impossible. The "moral matchsticks" for Buddhism, Christianity, > and Islam are different. I DON'T agree that intelligence has anything > to do with it. I would say that Buddhists, Christians, and Islamics are all people (or rather, as I am contending, animals) and ultimately they should all be subject to the same moral standards (if indeed such exits). As for intelligence, I suggest that IF WE ARE to differentiate (morally) between the other animals and humans, that's about the only basis for such differentiation. I am not now, however, advocating such a moral distinguishment. > > The only arguable difference between our species and the other animals on the > > planet is that of intelligence, > > > ?? - What about dangerousness? A powerful rifle can make > short work of any animal on earth. Rifles are the product of our intelligence. > Of course not, the only morality anyone has ever heard of > that places intelligence as morally superior is the one you invented > for this article. Actually, I believe that William Shockley advocates such a policy and is quite concerned about maintaining the purity of the "intelligent" gene pool. He argues that the general level of intelligence (of homo sapiens) is declining as the more intelligent people have few children, and the less intelligent ones have more children. > If animals, fetuses, or whatever want rights, they have to ask > for them. ... > There is no big platter of "rights" somewhere that are > ordained for all living creatures. If you advocate that rights are attained by asking for them, then certainly babies, uneducated people, etc. don't have any as they can't ask. If, as you seem to say, WE determine morality, then it's only by virtue of power (shades of Socrates!) that anyone has rights. So when we encounter some more highly (technologically) advanced life form, we will have to relinquish our rights. This is not an appetizing prospect. Jeff Sonntag writes: > Joseph Arceneaux writes: > > If we should place such a premium on that trait known as intelligence that we > > give moral superiority to our species over the others on our planet, then we > >must also give such MORAL superiority to those of our species who are most in- > > telligent. > > The second part of the above statement doesn't follow from the first,... I maintain that if intelligence is the criteria for moral value, then fine, assign those values to all entities, IRREGARDLESS of any other incidental properties such as pysical composition or what specie it happens to be. So, if one day computers become superior to humans, then they will be our masters, just as we are masters of the other animals on the planet due to our superior intellect. > We're talking about a threshold of conciousness somewhere between animals > and people. ALL people, except the brain-dead and those only recently > conceived fall above this threshold. ... Such a threshold is arbitrary and merely the fruit of human chauvinism. Why exclude brain-dead and recently conceived? If you maintain such a threshhold, then you will have to include chimpanzees, as they have certainly displayed ample evidence of consciousness. Darwin in 'Descent of Man' states "The difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind..." Gary Samuelson writes: > E.g., only humans seem to be interested in moral questions. This is not at all clear to me. It is evident to me that many animals recognize a moral structure on the operational level. Even on the next level, e.g., of pondering the morality of an action, there is evidence of such activity among the higher animals. And then of course, on the other side of the coin, there are certainly many humans who don't even reach this second level. > If it is true, as I suggested above, that only humans ask questions > of the form, "Is action X moral?", then it would not really make > sense to say that our species is better than any other, in the > sense of moral superiority. The fact that we seem to have a sense > of morality, even if it leads each of us to different conclusions, > means that we can be either good or bad, but a mouse (for example) > is neither good nor bad, it's just a mouse. Tselis elsewhere nicely points out the difficulty with this approach. > But, you (apparently; I may be reading too much into your article) do > see a difference between killing a fetus and killing a child (say, six > months after birth). Why? And, do you see a difference between > killing an animal and killing a plant? Good question. Yes, there is a difference between killing the fetus and the child. The child is more developed. Now, morally there may or may not be a difference. If intelligence is the moral criteria, well, an early fetus would have less value than the child. But functionally there is little moral difference, as both must pass considerable time before being visibly (externally) intelligent beings. Personally, I am quite reticent to use the intelligence (functional or otherwise) criteria. I would be more apt to take a utilitarian approach, where the moral status of a beings life was determined by the best interest of the society. ('Society' defined in next paragraph...) Using that criteria, it would depend on the circumstances. The same applies to plants vs. animals. Of course, the problem with all this is that personal sympathies (read: chauvinism) come into play. I would be much more reticent to kill a cat than a specimen of Johnson grass. This is also the problem with abortions; certainly most people seem to more reluctant to kill an infant than a fetus. I believe though, that room can be found in the utilitarian approach for such sympathies. For me this would be done by defining 'society,' for the moment, as life on our planet. -- Joseph Arceneaux USL Computer Science Department {akgua, ut-sally}!usl!jla <all-purpose, generic disclaimer fits here>