What is human?

This statement from the Animal Cognition thread caught me:
Some mentally retarded or senile are incapable of having rationality and volitional consciousness. Under your definition, they're not human.
This is something that has had me thinking. Take ethically based vegetarianism: if my ethics are based on not harming humans and rationality and volitional consciousness are at least part of what defines human (aside from the biological aspects), is it ok to eat a brain-dead person? Or grandma with alzheimer's?

I don't recall ever having read an Objectivist position on ethics regarding the retarded, senile, etc. Anyone have anything for me?

Sarah

Post 1

Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 1:08pm

Sarah,

"Anyone have anything for me?"

Yeah. Where do we stop? Do we define "lunch" as anyone with an IQ below 90? 100? 120? It's a lot safer to stick to other species.

On the other hand, some say we have a population problem......

Post 2

Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 2:15pm

I challenge the original statement. You are making a huge assumption, that these brain-damaged people can no longer be rehabilitated. I think they potentially have the chance to become rational individuals when treatment becomes possible.

It's the same justification for protecting babies and young children before they can reason. They have the potential to do so.

Post 3

Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 2:20pm

Mike,

Safer maybe, but it's arbitrary. If cognitive abilities really are what matter and not just species then that's not gonna cut it.

Sarah

Post 4

Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 2:27pm

Marcus,

At risk of turning this into the Animal Cognition thread, if we're ignoring technological limitations then what's to stop us from altering lower primates so they have the brain power of a normal human? Does that count more or less as the same kind of potential that a mentally retarded person has?

Sarah

Post 5

Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 2:54pm

At risk of turning this into the Animal Cognition thread, if we're ignoring technological limitations then what's to stop us from altering lower primates so they have the brain power of a normal human?

I think "altering" is the key word here. I think as far as a human being is concerned it would be "curing" or "restoring to health".

Post 6

Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 3:54pm

Hi Sarah,

I don't think safer as in "self preservation" is an arbitrary motive. As humans we can prey on other species safely, but not our own species.

I don't think the rules have been set regarding the cognitive abilities of various species so it's each person according to their own "taste" so to speak. I can eat a chicken but I would never harm a African Grey parrot for instance. I guess I feel differently about the animals that have been cultivated for generations to be food animals as opposed to wild animals. I can eat beef but I cannot shoot a deer, for another instance. Though one winter in Alaska I had a moose steak and it tasted so good I thought that if I was really hungry, "Yeah, I could go out and hunt these things with a sharp stick".

Post 7

Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 5:33pm

Sarah,

I don't like your approach to morality. It looks to me like you are suggesting we follow these steps:
===================
Step 1. For all possible values of X, place X into a category:
Category 1. Doing X to humans is wrong.
Category 2. Doing X to humans is right.
Category 3. Doing X to humans doesn't matter.

Step 2. Define a human. A human has at least 50% the intelligence as Dean Michael Gores, the greatest human. A human has 99.98% simular DNA as Dean Michael Gores, the greatest human.

Step 3. Decide if a given entity, Y, is a human by using step 2. If human, use the Categories from step 1. If not human, the Categories from step 1 do not apply.
===================

Instead, might I suggest you follow the following steps:

1. For a given entity, Y, and a given context, C, determine the best course of action you can take to achieve your goals.
2. Act accordingly.

Post 8

Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 5:41pm

Dean,

You are just awesome. Really.

Post 9

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 12:34am

Sarah,

I am the one imputed with insinuating that complete non-rationality entails non-humanhood -- though I am in great agreement with the defenses offered above (e.g. about a "cure" versus an "altering").

Here's a more clear hypothetical (one that illuminates my thought on this matter):

If it were possible to remove the cerebral cortex of someone (vital centers for breathing, etc. are found deeper -- in the brain stem), in a way that made rationality impossible, then the being on the operating table -- now only capable of sentience, but not sapience -- would cease to be a human being, and would then be only a shell of one.

If you take the capacity for rationality away, then you take away the humanity -- that's how intertwined the 2 are.

Ed

Post 10

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 6:24am

I think Marcus and Ed are off in treating a potential as an actual, an unreasonable potential at that, because most mentally retarded and senile folks have never been cured, nor is there any reasonable sign of a cure for them in the near future. A potential human is not a human.

On Ed's further bit, he seems to accept that rationality is what makes us human. I usually needle Ed when he starts making tests to determine rationalility because inevitably some humans fail his test or some nonhumans pass it. His latest test - cerebral cortex removal - is no different. We could remove the cerebral cortex in other animals as well in such a way that'd make rationality impossible for them too. :-) Digging a little deeper, it seems Ed's test is just another appeal for rationality as the necessary and sufficient criterion for what makes us human. And again, once I heckle Ed (he really is a good sport about this) or anyone else for a rationality test, we wind up with some nonrational humans or some rational nonhumans. Suits me fine, but then again, my ethics don't sink or swim by whether others are rational.

I think Mike is also off in his appeal to "self preservation" in that (1) eating brain-dead grandma will not result in the end of my species or me, and (2) an egoist's concern is primarily to himself, so it shouldn't matter whether the rest of the species (or any other species for that matter) survives unless it provides relatively greater benefit for. Further, I disagree that whom (or what) we harm or don't harm is merely a matter of "taste." That consigns important ethical questions to the realm of subjectivism, a realm I don't think we need venture here.

Sarah,

This might be reiterating Dean's comment. It seems you first accept that you ought not harm other humans, then you ask what humans are. I think this is backwards. I think you should first determine what someone (or something) needs to have in order for you to abstain from harming him or her (or it). Then you should determine which humans (if any) fulfill the criteria, leaving open the possibility that some nonhumans might also fulfill the criteria. Otherwise, you're engaging in a type of rationalization, a reverse engineering your ethics.

Ethics aside, if you're just interesting in figuring out what in reality gives rise to the concept "human," well, why not first practice with what gives rise the concepts of other animals? Also, ask yourself whether you're looking for necessary or sufficient (or both) conditions in determining what is and isn't human.

Jordan

Post 11

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 12:38pm

A potential human is not a human.

Therefore, an irrational baby is not human?

Post 12

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 2:36pm

Hmmm - there's such a thing as a rational baby?

Post 13

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 3:33pm

Marcus, following your line of reasoning, where does the objective line between baby and fetus occur? Couldn't an anti-abortionist argue that since fetuses are certain to become humans, we must protect them?

Post 14

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 4:39pm

Fetuses aren't certain to become humans - that's why there are miscarriages.

Post 15

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 5:02pm

Jordon,

"I think Mike is also off in his appeal to "self preservation" in that (1) eating brain-dead grandma will not result in the end of my species or me, and (2) an egoist's concern is primarily to himself, so it shouldn't matter whether the rest of the species (or any other species for that matter) survives unless it provides relatively greater benefit for. Further, I disagree that whom (or what) we harm or don't harm is merely a matter of "taste." That consigns important ethical questions to the realm of subjectivism, a realm I don't think we need venture here."

As to "self preservation", if I find you have eaten MY brain dead grandma it WILL result in the end of you. I believe everyone feels the same about their own grandma. So, to avoid certain retribution I believe it's safer call "off limits" on eating members of our own species. Unless you think humans are not the most dangerous species on earth.

As far as consigning important ethical questions to the realm of subjectivism: Are you suggesting that my conclusions about an ethical decision are subjective and your own are by definition objective? As a practical matter, the actions that we take that are not constrained by the rule of law ARE a matter of taste. My value system may seem subjective to you but it is still my value system. Many people, perhaps most, consider eating meat as an important part of a healthy diet. Selfish me, I place a high value on my health.

Post 16

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 6:54pm

Dean,

I agree with your recommended plan-o-ethics, but that wouldn't make for very interesting discussion now would it? :)

Mike,

I think you're placing too much emphasis on the eating of grandma. That was just an example.

All,

I wasn't clear enough in my question. Although I can look back and see how that assumption was easily made, I'm not taking humans at the top of the morality list and then trying to decide what is human. In hindsight, my the heading of this thread and wording of my first post were pretty crappy. So, I'll try again.

Assuming a system of ethics is based on the rationality and volition of its adherents, how do you justify the inclusion of beings that have neither of the above attributes in having rights, especially the right to life.

I chose the likes of eating brain-dead grandma as an example to show what I see as rationalization of emotional impulses when it comes to the ethics of the situation.

I can understand the potential-rational-being argument, but I don't think that's good enough. Where do we draw the line of potential. Marcus says that "altering" a gorilla, for example, so that it has the cognitive abilities of, say, the greatest human Dean is, in principle, different from "curing" a mentally retarded person so that said person then has the cognitive abilities of Dean. I'm not convinced that altering and curing in these instances are different. Both cases include the deviation of events from their course in absence of human intervention. Why is the mentally retarded person special (no pun intended)? There was hissing because I appeared to be advocating species-centric ethics, but is that not what's going on in the "altering" of a gorilla. Is not higher level cognition on of the potential courses of evolution of the gorilla?

Sarah

Post 17

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 7:33pm

Sarah,

Sorry I was a little tongue in cheek in my previous replies. I will tell you exactly what the situation is in my view:

Grandma and your mentally retarded person are off limits precisely because they are the same species as we are. Cognitive abilities has nothing to do with the very rational human taboo against cannibalism. It would be a very dangerous game to play, as I said before, where do you draw the line? We have nothing to fear from other species, humans are another matter. And if you think practicality has nothing to do with ethics, I beg to differ. Practicality has EVERYTHING to do with ethics. Practicality and objectivity and reason are synonymous in my book.

If you are trying to create an ethical reason other than cognitive ability for humans to refrain from killing animals for food by making animals analogous to humans with limited abilities I'm afraid it won't work. You need to define the set of beings other than human that are immoral to eat or kill then find a way to fit your animals into this set and then convince a majority of other humans of the rightness of your argument.

Post 18

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 7:37pm

Not really, Sarah - remember, there needs be a practicality involved in these evolutionary shiftings, namely it advances what was before - and there is a need, biologically, for it to come into being, a pressuring, as it were, of situations which would favor those which had the rudiments of cognition to increaese it, thru usage of it that enhances those who have it to procreate and survive moreso than others would.
(Edited by robert malcom on 8/14, 7:39pm)

Post 19

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 8:07pm