Hey, love the site. Lots of great information and brilliant refutations of pro-choice arguments.
I'm in the middle of an abortion debate and have hit a bit of a wall with one of their objections, here it is.
"You don't KNOW that humans contain some element that makes us different from animals. We might be the same, the only difference being that humans are better adapted physically and are better at vocalizing our needs and wants. But instead of giving animals the benefit of the doubt, you deem it alright to kill and eat them before an absolute verdict has come in, since evidence suggest that humans and animals are not intellectually or spiritually equal. This is enough for you to make your decision.
Likewise, we don't KNOW for absolute certain that humans contain some element that makes us different from zygotes. We could be the same, only difference being that humans are better developed physically. But instead of giving zygotes the benefit of the doubt, we deem it alright to not allow them to implant in the uterus before an absolute verdict has come in, since the evidence suggests that humans and zygotes are not intellectually or spiritually equal. This is enough for us for us to make OUR decision.
So...that being said. Why are you any better than us? How can you be any more certain than we are, that you are not killing a creature that is just as "special" as you?
You go on about how you have to speak up for unborn children because they can't speak for themselves, and that just because zygotes don't look like humans, that doesn't mean they aren't deserving of rights and personhood. So why should a zygote be given rights and personhood, but not animals? Animals can't speak for themselves and they don't look like humans, but does that mean it's ok to kill them?"
I'm just a little too close to this one at this point and their relativism has made me lose my bearings...
J, here is the 9/23/08 Guttmacher release: http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2008/09/23/
index.html
Hi Mark,
I'm glad you enjoy the site.
My answer to the above objection would probably go something like this:
Actually, we are certain there are differences between human beings in general and animals and animals in general. There are a number of differences which are quite obvious to anyone such as being different species, being able to form societies, having a rationale nature, etc. etc. Now some people think these differences don't matter and think all animal life (or at least a good portion of animal life) should be protected. They can make that argument. I personally don't find it persuasive. But whether or not animals should have the same basic protections as human beings seems to be a different debate than whether unborn human beings should have the same basic rights as human beings.
I'm not opposed to giving animals human rights because they don't look human. I'm opposed to giving animals human rights because they aren't human.
I would also say there are differences between born, fully developed human beings and unborn human beings who aren't fully developed. But people in favor of killing unborn human beings need to make a case for why those arbitrary differences matter and why those differences should matter instead of other differences.
Hi JJ
One thing that struck me about your above reply is that it is factually inaccurate. You state: “There are a number of differences which are quite obvious to anyone such as being different species, being able to form societies, having a rationale nature, etc.”
This is not correct. Many animals (even non-mammals) form complex collectives that fit the description of a society (use of tools, division of labor, systems of knowledge transmission). Also, many species display clearly rational behavior, such as organized pack hunting strategies and patterns of status recognition.
Your opposition rests on a tautology: “I'm opposed to giving animals human rights because they aren't human.” That’s obvious, and nobody who thinks about this issue would make that claim that all animals should have human rights. The animal rights person that Mark L. was responding to didn’t even make that argument.
Bruce
Bruce,
How is the use of tools fit the description of forming a society? Systems of knowledge transmission? Which animals do that? Rational behavior is different than a rational nature.
The original argument given to Mark rests on the faulty description (or at least a description which doesn't match my view) of the prolife position. They didn't make that argument because they're not really making an argument for why the unborn shouldn't have rights. They're trying to point to some supposed inconsistency in the prolife position instead of providing a true argument for why it should be legal to kill the unborn.
“How is the use of tools fit the description of forming a society?”
Well, if you’re using tools, you’re using them for a purpose. Purposes are not an individual level property - they are collective. Therefore tool-usage presupposes some shared or collective world, voila, you have society.
“Systems of knowledge transmission? Which animals do that?”
Many. Check out the cover of Science magazine: http://www.sciencemag.org/conten...e5784/
cover.dtl
Or just watch Meerkat Manor.
Or read this: “Animal Cognition: Social Animals Prove Their Smarts”
To quote: “A new generation of experiments reveals that group-living animals have a surprising degree of intelligence. What was once considered a sharp line separating humans from all other animals is becoming a blurry gray area, with various animals possessing certain parts of the skill set considered to be advanced cognition.”
Science, 23 June 2006: Vol. 312. no. 5781, pp. 1734 – 1738
Looks like yer gonna have to re-think the whole human/animal distinction, no?
Bruce
Hey Jive,
Here's the argument I've developed, tell me if I'm missing it here but it feels solid to me.
What makes us different from animals is our ability to have consciousness, rationality and volition. But to say that we are different because of these abilities is faulty logic because we are living creatures. We are not defined by our abilities. Defining something by its ability is something you would do with a machine, not with a living thing. Like if a knife cannot cut or doesnt have an edge...is it still a knife? But even with this we still see that ability as a property of that object. Scissors which don't cut can still be properly called scissors, just broken scissors. Removing something's ability doesnt change its essential nature.
So with humans, I would argue that the reason we are different from animals is because of some essential difference within us which gives us those abilities which make that difference apparent. We are created at conception with that difference, and it manifests itself as we develop. One's essense does not change over the course of their life, but the accidental properties like abilities, appearance and such do.
So...does this make sense? Will it hold up? Do you see any weak points they might attack?
Mark
You position has been argued by others, perhaps the most forcefully by Robert George at Princeton. You might want to review his arguments to get a better picture. However there are several major problems to the essentialist position:
1. First of all, what is this essence? Is it material or not? Some will argue it’s the possession of a human genome. Others will make metaphysical arguments that the essence is something like a soul. You need to specify what you think this essence is.
2. Second, you must confront the issue of change. If you make the essentialist argument, you’re more or less stuck with the assumption that this essence (whatever that might be) is trans-historical, or that it has been the same thing since time immemorial. I hope you understand why you’re stuck with that assumption, but I’m happy to explain if necessary. This position then faces a serious problem – namely, human beings appear to be able to radically change themselves and their societies (compare 21st century life with 9th century life for example). Pretty big differences that you would need to account for.
3. Finally, and perhaps most devastating to your position, are the criticisms against what Hilary Putnam called “metaphysical realism.” Simply put, there are no descriptions of categorical objects (what philosopher call “natural kinds” or in this case “essence”) that are completely free of the human mind. This does not imply a relativist position, as some might argue. Rather, some descriptions are better than others – and the important question is why this is the case. Again this is a longer argument, but read Putnam’s work for starters:
a. The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002.
b. Realism with a Human Face. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990.
Anyways, hope this helps. I’m always happy to see someone grappling with difficult questions.
Bruce
Bruce,
Maybe I should have clarified but what I meant by society. I wasn't thinking in extremely micro-terms like a family of meerkats living together. I was thinking more on the macro-sense like a civilization.
Your link does nothing to prove a system of knowledge transmission. Meerkats giving prey to young meerkats doesn't mean they've created a system to pass knowledge on to future generations, it just means they provide opportunities for their young to learn how to kill prey.
Mark,
I might use the term nature instead of essence. I would also ask them to back up the assertion that "You don't KNOW that humans contain some element that makes us different from animals" since that statement is simply not true.
You might also ask them if they think human beings are valuable simply because they are human.
I'm guessing the individual you're arguing with believes in some kind of personhood theory where some ability (like consciousness, self-awareness, etc.) gives value to things.
Jive,
The person I'm debating says that consciousness is what makes us a "person" (he makes a distinction between being a living human being and a person) but he states that it is wrong to kill people who are asleep or in comas outright because they have an underlying "right to existence". Here are some of my arguments against that concept...
You say that consciousness is what makes us persons, and only person’s have the right to life. You then say that the reason we don’t kill people who are asleep or otherwise unconscious is because even though they are non-person’s they still have what you call, a “right to existence” by which you mean you cannot just kill them outright. But what confuses me is two things. For one, how do you know this right to existence exists and why do you think it logically follows at all? Secondly, you say that these non-persons are protected by this “right to existence” and yet we can clearly see other non-persons who are not protected by this “right”, such as animals. If they are all essentially the same in that they are non-persons they should all have the same rights and it should be okay to kill unconscious people.
Another argument I can see being put forward as to why we don’t kill sleeping people would be that they have the necessary equipment to be conscious, they just are not using that ability right now. This feels dangerously close to “potential” which as we know is not actuality. If you put it forward as having the potential to be conscious, it would make no logical sense as an argument against the zygote which shares the same potential.
Another thing which bothers me is that the non-person which remains when we are unconscious STRIVES TO REGAIN CONSIOUSNESS. It seems strange to me that a non-person can try to become a person. It is strange to me that a non-person can become a person at all just by waking up, but even more that the body itself can work to change its state in such a way as to become a person seems completely ridiculous to me.
If consciousness IS humanity, then we would need to be conscious all the time. It doesn’t make sense that we can will ourselves into a state of unconsciousness; this would be like willing the end of our own existence. I also don’t like that with consciousness the state of our personhood changes rapidly throughout our life, that doesn’t make sense to me on a basic level.
JJ
You wrote: “Meerkats giving prey to young meerkats doesn't mean they've created a system to pass knowledge on to future generations, it just means they provide opportunities for their young to learn how to kill prey.”
Your claim is incorrect. Besides, you even use the term “learn.” If meerkat pups are learning, then adult meerkats are teaching.
If you read the conclusion of the article, you find this statement:
“Evidence from ants and meerkats suggests that teaching, as defined by Caro and Hauser, may have evolved independently in many unrelated taxa. Where individuals must acquire critical skills or information but individual learning is costly or opportunities to practice are lacking, selection may favor mechanisms whereby experienced individuals actively facilitate learning by naïve conspecifics.”
The notion that meerkats “actively facilitate learning” = the passing on of knowledge.
Bruce
The notion that meerkats “actively facilitate learning” = the passing on of knowledge.
Yes, it's your notion that giving prey to young meerkats means meerkats have "Systems of knowledge transmission." I don't agree.
You seem to have simplified your argument to "some adult animals help their young learn things. Therefore, animals have complex collectives which fit the description of society."
"I don't agree."
OK, so you don't agree with a research article, published in the world's most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal. Care to share on what grounds you disagree?
“You seem to have simplified your argument to "some adult animals help their young learn things. Therefore, animals have complex collectives which fit the description of society.”
No, that’s a blatant mischaracterization. I was responding to the point you raised. I’m happy to defend any of the others as well, should you care to ask about them.
Bruce
Bruce,
I don't agree with your take on the article and I think I've already shared why.
But again, as in other discussions, you seem to not get the point. I already noted how when I said "society" I wasn't talking about the extreme micro-sense like a meerkat family.
So why are talking about this again?
jivin
Since my "take" on the article was quoting what the authors wrote, it's not clear what you're trying to say. You've never explained why you disagree. When you disagree it's always helpful to give reasons other than "I disagree."
Perhaps you didn't actually read the article, since it wasn't talking about a meerkat "family," but rather a property that's common to all members of the species.
Now THIS is what I'm used to the discussion looking like...good work fellas. Remember, to put forward your biased information as fact and deny even the smallest points of contention to the other side...I think we're really getting somewhere.
Mark
Mark
I'm not sure if that comment was directed at me, but if you're claiming that quoting Science magazine is "biased information" then it's gonna be real hard to talk about anything substantial.
Commenting by HaloScan
