Secular Humanism and Humanity: What are they?

[robvalue]

I remember someone saying that two key changes that led to humans being as intelligent as they are were what you would normally consider "bad" changes, but somehow luckily ended up in our favour. Can't remember the details! Something to do with our brains I think.

[downbeatplumb]

I remember someone saying that two key changes that led to humans being as intelligent as they are were what you would normally consider "bad" changes, but somehow luckily ended up in our favour. Can't remember the details! Something to do with our brains I think.

I have a pet theory which is down to cannibalism or possibly war.
I can think of no better spur to a single species evolution than to be it's own prey and predator, sprinkle in chimp level smarts and rudimentary language, et viola humans.

[Ignorant]

---

Ignorant: Valuable... Well, I try my best to never cause any animal to suffer or die. Unfortunately this is an ideal, and sometimes I have to make compromises. But I am rarely in a situation where I need to make an empirical decision about what life is more valuable, I respect it all as far as possible. I don't consider any of it to be expendable. I would have to admit to a sliding scale of bias though that bigger animals and ones more capable of thought carry more weight if I do have to make decisions. I think this is due to a feeling that they are able to suffer more, so should be protected more if decisions must be made. For example, I use flea treatment on my dog. I know this will kill fleas, and I hate that, but I decide to value my dog's health as more important.

But if I sit here and coldly evaluate the life of a dog versus the life of a human say, I don't feel that one is simply more valuable than the other. A human is much more capable of having a large effect on the world, but there's no guarantee that effect would be positive.

---

So I guess what I'm saying is... Short of some extremely unlikely scenario involving a burning building where I have to make a snap decision based largely on instinct, I don't particularly value human life more than animal life. In fact, I hate the human race as a whole because we are capable of evil on a massive scale, we can and do cause suffering to other animals in ways that "lesser" species simply never could.

But please understand, that is not to say I devalue humans, it's saying that I value animals much more than most people would.

---

Most people see them as in some way lesser and not as important as us. I bring them up to our level, so to speak.

---

I know this is unusual, but that is how I am. I would do my best to stop suffering to any form of life, and I would try and help a human just as much as anyone else.

Unusual or not, I am just curious about how you see things.

Particularly the part about "[You] don't particularly value human life more than animal life." I am curious about a great many things if this is truly what you believe.

Disclaimer: the following question is not a "set up". There is no "priest in the bushes" waiting to pop up with a "gotcha!". I just want to know how your above thought applies to several important areas:

On what basis then, is there a "moral" distinction between owning animals for the sake of work (e.g. dogs, horses, oxen, cattle, etc.) and owning humans for the sake of work? This is not to say that I think such a distinction is impossible on your view, I just want to know how you derive that distinction. If a human is not inherently more valuable/dignified/whatever than the other animals, what is different about the injustice of slavery and the legitimate ownership of animals?

[The Grand Nudger]

Jesus christ.........it's a bigot in the bushes!

Now here is an interesting angle! So the sorts of relationships we have with others is a defining characteristic? Is there anything more you can say about that?

You're overthinking it. I offered my example (in the hopes of seeing one of your own) to demonstrate that it doesn't take much to determine who or what is human. We don;t need to sequence any genes, no deep philosophical discussion on the meaning of life or the origins of the universe are required. We need no authority (human or divine) in order to determine this. I walk my kids up the lane for their schoolbus, we get the mail. Would you say that this clarifies the issue as to whether or not I am a human being? To a humanist (as to anyone) a "human being" is just another creature like themselves...if nothing more or less. You don't walk through the grocery store wondering what percentage of the patrons are human and what remainder are just convincing ruses, eh?

Neither do I. Our experiences(whatever they may be) -as human beings- are the robust explanation by which we determine who or what is human, and nothing more is required of or for humanism on that count.

[robvalue]

---

Ignorant: Valuable... Well, I try my best to never cause any animal to suffer or die. Unfortunately this is an ideal, and sometimes I have to make compromises. But I am rarely in a situation where I need to make an empirical decision about what life is more valuable, I respect it all as far as possible. I don't consider any of it to be expendable. I would have to admit to a sliding scale of bias though that bigger animals and ones more capable of thought carry more weight if I do have to make decisions. I think this is due to a feeling that they are able to suffer more, so should be protected more if decisions must be made. For example, I use flea treatment on my dog. I know this will kill fleas, and I hate that, but I decide to value my dog's health as more important.

But if I sit here and coldly evaluate the life of a dog versus the life of a human say, I don't feel that one is simply more valuable than the other. A human is much more capable of having a large effect on the world, but there's no guarantee that effect would be positive.

---

So I guess what I'm saying is... Short of some extremely unlikely scenario involving a burning building where I have to make a snap decision based largely on instinct, I don't particularly value human life more than animal life. In fact, I hate the human race as a whole because we are capable of evil on a massive scale, we can and do cause suffering to other animals in ways that "lesser" species simply never could.

But please understand, that is not to say I devalue humans, it's saying that I value animals much more than most people would.

---

Most people see them as in some way lesser and not as important as us. I bring them up to our level, so to speak.

---

I know this is unusual, but that is how I am. I would do my best to stop suffering to any form of life, and I would try and help a human just as much as anyone else.

Unusual or not, I am just curious about how you see things.

Particularly the part about "[You] don't particularly value human life more than animal life." I am curious about a great many things if this is truly what you believe.

Disclaimer: the following question is not a "set up". There is no "priest in the bushes" waiting to pop up with a "gotcha!". I just want to know how your above thought applies to several important areas:

On what basis then, is there a "moral" distinction between owning animals for the sake of work (e.g. dogs, horses, oxen, cattle, etc.) and owning humans for the sake of work? This is not to say that I think such a distinction is impossible on your view, I just want to know how you derive that distinction. If a human is not inherently more valuable/dignified/whatever than the other animals, what is different about the injustice of slavery and the legitimate ownership of animals?

I don't draw a distinction. If it's not something the animal enjoys doing, or they are simply yours to do as you wish, it's slavery.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don;t like my dayjob but I'm forced to do it by socio-economic pressure. Dammit I'm a slave!

(I think that it might be a little insensitive of the memories of slaves and slavery to make a ground leveling comparison between that institution and livestock production, lol....but it is pretty close. Livestock have it better than slaves ever did, btw.)

[Mudhammam]

I should think the biggest difference between subjugating human beings to the humiliation of slavery and using animals as a means to an end lies in 1) the greater quality of the experience, essentially the conceptual grasp, that every person has of such ideals as freedom, justice, and personal dignity, which animals probably lack to any degree that is really comparable to a human being (the more intelligent animals may rightly object though, if they could), and 2) God gave us dominion over animals... Just kidding... 2) Are animals that are treated as property, but cared for and fed, actually worse off then they would be in the wild? (In terms of mass farming, where animals are bred for the purpose of slaughter, I think their lives should be made as easy and comfortable as possible... at the end of the day, perhaps call it specieism, I don't think we have the same moral responsibilities towards animals as we do towards people, but we do have some).

[The Grand Nudger]

2) Just as he gave masters dominion over slaves, kings over nations, etc.

[Ignorant]

---

Unusual or not, I am just curious about how you see things.

Particularly the part about "[You] don't particularly value human life more than animal life." I am curious about a great many things if this is truly what you believe.

Disclaimer: the following question is not a "set up". There is no "priest in the bushes" waiting to pop up with a "gotcha!". I just want to know how your above thought applies to several important areas:

On what basis then, is there a "moral" distinction between owning animals for the sake of work (e.g. dogs, horses, oxen, cattle, etc.) and owning humans for the sake of work? This is not to say that I think such a distinction is impossible on your view, I just want to know how you derive that distinction. If a human is not inherently more valuable/dignified/whatever than the other animals, what is different about the injustice of slavery and the legitimate ownership of animals?

---

I don't draw a distinction. If it's not something the animal enjoys doing, or they are simply yours to do as you wish, it's slavery.

Thanks for being patient with my questions!

---

(I think that it might be a little insensitive of the memories of slaves and slavery to make a ground leveling comparison between that institution and livestock production, lol....but it is pretty close. Livestock have it better than slaves ever did, btw.)

Well I absolutely agree with that. Robvalue DID assure us that his thoughts were odd.

---

---

I should think the biggest difference between subjugating human beings to the humiliation of slavery and using animals as a means to an end lies in

---

1) the greater quality of the experience, essentially the conceptual grasp, that every person has of such ideals as freedom, justice, and personal dignity, which animals probably lack to any degree that is really comparable to a human being (the more intelligent animals may rightly object though, if they could),

---

and 2) God gave us dominion over animals... Just kidding... 2) Are animals that are treated as property, but cared for and fed, actually worse off then they would be in the wild? (In terms of mass farming, where animals are bred for the purpose of slaughter, I think their lives should be made as easy and comfortable as possible... at the end of the day, perhaps call it specieism,

---

I don't think we have the same moral responsibilities towards animals as we do towards people, but we do have some).

As for 1), what exactly is "freedom" in the context of reduction of everything, including ourselves, to the material evolutionary process? In the Free Will thread it seems that you reject the idea of the "self". What then is it about the human animal that is capable of realizing any sort of "freedom"?

As for the last sentence, I agree, and I assume it is due in whole or in part to your reasons expressed in 1).

[The Grand Nudger]

Even if freedom weren't achievable, that wouldn't lessen our desire for it, eh? Ultimately, a human need not be capable of actually achieving freedom in order to appreciate what it is, what it means, why they want it (or don't) and why others might (or wouldn't). We see people like this in just about every repressive regime, don't we? We don't see alot of that in cattle, for whatever reason.