What can make humans special?
For a summary, click here.
Someone with a speciesistic, anthropocentric philosophy assumes an essential difference between humans and other species. He or she attributes qualities to humans that make them superior to the rest of the animal kingdom, and derives a special status from this. This can be a bodily characteristic like walking upright, whereby we have our hands free to affect our environment in a far-reaching way.
Physically not the best
Moreover, anthropocentric authors do not deny that humans are physically inferior to other species in various respects. All our senses have animal counterparts which have a much greater range. Think, for example, of the dog's nose, the elephant's hearing, the cat's whiskers with which they can scan their surroundings, or the eagle's eyesight. Some species even have sensory abilities which we humans do not share at all, like the perception of electrical fields or echolocation1).
Motorically considered, we are also surpassed by all kinds of animals which, for example, can run or swim much faster than us. We traverse airspace with airplanes and other flying machines, but naturally we lack the organic wings of birds or bats.
In terms of general physical constitution, humans are less well adapted to specific ecological circumstances, so that our survival depends on clothing and other forms of shelter. Of course, the fact that we are not bound to a certain environment has been favorable to our evolutionary success, because the human species can survive almost everywhere. But the fact that we can adapt to different environments is primarily due to our mental abilities and not so much to special bodily features.
As to our average lifetime we are still being surpassed by, for example, giant tortoises and cockatoos. We can try to prolong our lifetime by genetic modification, but then again, only because of our intelligence. Summarized, we can maintain ourselves as a species just fine with our bodies, but purely physically, we perform less well than other species in many ways.
1) Downer, J. (1989). Supersense - Bijzondere zintuigen van dieren. Kampen, La Riviëre & Voorhoeven.
Mental toppers
Already in ancient times, humans were being defined by their striking mental abilities. Even the Latin name Homo sapiens sapiens refers to this, twice even.
This does not mean that there are no other species that can match us cognitively in certain areas. Meanwhile, we know that animals have been grossly underestimated psychologically for centuries. Think, for example, of the ability of self-recognition by great apes, dolphins, elephants and magpies, which points to a highly developed self-consciousness. Or think about the use of tools by, for example, primates and corvids. A certain level of abstract reasoning generally appears in the animal world more often than what in particular western philosophers have traditionally thought. The thesis that humans are intelligent and animals are not, or that other species are completely driven by irrational urges, has finally become outdated2).
However, there are domains in which human beings up to now have no equal, at least on earth. Even though animals in general are more intelligent and psychologically complex than we previously thought, our symbolic systems, like spoken and written human languages, have advanced abstract thinking and the exchange of thought enormously. This has been at the basis of the development of human culture and technology. Our evolution has therewith become a cultural evolution for an important part. The parallels concerning this among animals are without a doubt surprising and impressive, but a successful combination of mental characteristics as humans know them still seems unique. The average human being, compared with most other species, really seems to function at an extraordinarily high level of mental complexity and self-reflection. Even when we are not the smartest in every respect, we certainly belong with the 'toppers'.
2) Rivas, T. (2011). De onvermoede rijkdom van de dierlijke psyche (The unsuspected riches of the animal psyche). Prana, 185, 10-18.
Moral superiority
A high level of abstract thinking makes it possible to systematically chart the interests of other beings and to take that into account. This has enabled concepts like human rights and animal rights, and therewith, finally, the vegan lifestyle. Animals regularly show compassion towards other animals, and in such cases they also feature a sort of moral consciousness. But only humans have, as far as we know, processed their moral insights into explicit and negotiable ethical systems.
Does this mean that human beings are 'naturally' morally superior to other species? Unfortunately, no. The presence of moral norms does in no way guarantee that humans treat others well in practice. This is an old misunderstanding that goes back to Socrates. Insight into the good does not imply good conduct.
With no other species can one find so much meaningless violence, vindictiveness, cruelty and sadism as with humans. This forms the basis of the curious phenomenon of misanthropy, the aversion that some feel for humankind, even though, of course, they are part of humankind themselves just as much. Humankind has a great moral potential, but we can certainly not collectively claim moral superiority. If we count the number of wrongdoings, we are probably the most immoral species on earth. Although it is possible that there are also other species (like orcas) that are capable of conscious acts of cruelty. But humans are without doubt the worst in their ruthlessness towards fellow beings and other species3). Precisely the fact that we are relatively so intelligent makes it all the more poignant that humans do not always use their reason to sufficiently take fellow creatures into account.
3) Please note: I certainly do not advocate a species-targeted moral judgment of humankind. In my opinion, just on the moral level, it does not make sense to judge someone on the fact that he or she is part of humankind, instead of on the quality of his or her individual moral behavior. I here only follow the logic of anthropocentrism.
Spiritual sublimity
Seen in this light, the traditional Christian thought that only humans have access to a spiritual domain is at least curious. Precisely the members of a species that is notorious for its lack of compassion would naturally have an immortal soul, while this would not apply to its animal victims. More unjust is barely possible.
Rationally speaking, it is thus more likely that we are all of the same order at the spiritual level. Whether all animals with an inner life possess a transcendent aspect or a spiritual dimension is, also for humans, nothing more than fiction. A spiritual sublimity which is exclusively bound to humankind has not been credible anymore since Darwin, because evolutionarily speaking, humans are animals as well. Psychological qualities have long ceased to be our privilege, so that the same should apply to spiritual attributes.
In stories about holy men and women who exercised attraction on animals, you often see this awareness of spiritual kinship. For example, it is not a coincidence that the death anniversary of Francis of Assisi is celebrated as 'animal day'. He considered all animals as his brothers and sisters. Many mystics have, for comparable reasons, advocated more consideration towards all 'God's creatures'.
What does it actually matter?
Like other species, homo sapiens has special characteristics in which it can excel. Some of these characteristics especially have to do with the ability to adapt, so as to optimize one's "biological success". But we also have mental attributes that undoubtedly rise beyond bodily survival and reproduction. Because many of these attributes, like self-consciousness, are also present in other species, we are not unique in that. What does seem to make us exceptional is the combination of mental attributes, our symbolic languages, and our cultural creations. One can try to equate psychological abilities with physical adaptations to the environment, so that, for example, human language competence equals the long neck of a giraffe. That indeed happened to prove that human beings, in these kinds of respects, are not more highly developed than other creatures. But this is only convincing when you wish to reduce all of reality to a purely physical process. Everyone who acknowledges that there is more than that should also acknowledge that human beings are extra well endowed in this respect.
We can do more than many other species, but does this also mean that we are superior to those other species? Considered purely functionally, perhaps we are, like a modern computer is superior to an old game console, because the computer simply provides more possibilities. But not in the sense that we are intrinsically worth more than other species. If that were the case, then a professor would be worth more than a baker. A mentally disabled person would be worth less than someone with average intelligence, and (most) children would be worth less than adults. In that sense, it is, well regarded, not even possible that someone's intrinsic value is superior to that of another. All animals that have subjective experiences are absolutely equal in worth on this level and should be treated accordingly. What you are capable of perhaps defines your usefulness, but your usefulness certainly does not define your intrinsic value or dignity4).
Thus, there is every reason to be glad with our human potential and to make use of it to our advantage, also for the benefit of other creatures. We may even be proud of the positive accomplishments of ourselves and other human beings, when we really have put effort into it and adequately made use of our nature5). But only when we do not feel worth more than the rest.
This article has been published in V Vegan Magazine, spring 2012, no. 92, pages 26-27.
4) Regan, T. (2004). The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press.
5) The possession of abilities as such is not yet a merit, unless one has acquired these abilities oneself. The constructive use of them is. |
