Mr Spinkles
Mr
To what extent are human beings "special"? This is a very complex and fascinating issue. You could look at the issue comparatively--comparing our species to other animals on Earth. (To what extent does our intelligence, our language and culture, our ability to manipulate our environment, and our self-awareness make us unique from other life forms?) You could look at the issue from a statistical standpoint--in other words, how probable is our existence, or the existence of animals like us? (This would entail looking at both cosmology and evolution.)
There's also a more philosophical approach: to what extent are humans free moral agents? In other words, should humans be considered morally culpable for their actions and to what extent, and are other animals also morally culpable? I guess my answer would be that, although we are products of our genetics and our environment just like all other animals, we (or at least, those of us who are not autistic) have the ability to understand that the world is full of other beings like ourselves, and because we have that awareness we should be expected to treat other beings in ways that shouldn't necessarily be expected of other animals.
**Okay, just to warn everybody, what follows is a lot of conjecture and speculation....**
This issue can get awfully hairy....people who work with animals know that they have personalities and can be just as unpredictable (and, sometimes, predictable) as people can (after all, human beings are animals).
I realize that there do not seem to be many characteristics of human beings that are totally unique to us....culture, ethics, social order, and even tool-making are present in other species. But certainly these things are not as pronounced in other animals as they are in us. I'm not very knowledgable about biology, so I'll wait for painted wolf to give us all the low-down on that aspect.
In terms of the probablitiy of our existence: First of all, there's the fundamental problem of how we define "special". If our existence was improbable, and our species something of a fluke, would we then be "special"? If the existence of intelligent life was probable, and our species only one of millions of intelligent life forms in the universe, would that make us "special"? It seems evident that, in terms of biology and evolution, our species is something of a fluke. However, in terms of cosmology and the physical constants of the universe (e.g. the mass of the electron), there is much debate over how probable/improbable it would have been for the first instants of the big bang to produce a universe in which carbon-based life is possible. (It is believed that in the early big bang, the fundamental constants of nature--like the strength of the gravitational force and the mass of the proton--were "frozen" in place.)
Hmm....actually, after some more thought, I think that the statistical approach is not a good way to answer this question. If our species is the product of unguided natural processes--whether they were probable or improbable processes--either way, our species is not "special". I guess to really answer this question we need to look at the comparative and/or philosophical approach.
I guess in the final analysis, as someone (was it Oscar Wilde?) said, art reflects more on the viewer than on the artwork itself. In that case, I suppose the question of whether humans are "special" depends on the values of the individual, not on the qualities of our species per se.
I, for one, definitely consider us special in some sense, though I am quick to qualify this by acknowledging that our uniqueness is one of magnitude rather than kind. There is certainly no magical, absolute barrier between humans and all other animals. I guess I would think of us as special in the same way that I would think of a small flower....it may not have much cosmic significance, but it's still special as long as I appreciate it. *edit: Kind of an egocentric view, isn't it?
There's also a more philosophical approach: to what extent are humans free moral agents? In other words, should humans be considered morally culpable for their actions and to what extent, and are other animals also morally culpable? I guess my answer would be that, although we are products of our genetics and our environment just like all other animals, we (or at least, those of us who are not autistic) have the ability to understand that the world is full of other beings like ourselves, and because we have that awareness we should be expected to treat other beings in ways that shouldn't necessarily be expected of other animals.
**Okay, just to warn everybody, what follows is a lot of conjecture and speculation....**
This issue can get awfully hairy....people who work with animals know that they have personalities and can be just as unpredictable (and, sometimes, predictable) as people can (after all, human beings are animals).
I realize that there do not seem to be many characteristics of human beings that are totally unique to us....culture, ethics, social order, and even tool-making are present in other species. But certainly these things are not as pronounced in other animals as they are in us. I'm not very knowledgable about biology, so I'll wait for painted wolf to give us all the low-down on that aspect.
In terms of the probablitiy of our existence: First of all, there's the fundamental problem of how we define "special". If our existence was improbable, and our species something of a fluke, would we then be "special"? If the existence of intelligent life was probable, and our species only one of millions of intelligent life forms in the universe, would that make us "special"? It seems evident that, in terms of biology and evolution, our species is something of a fluke. However, in terms of cosmology and the physical constants of the universe (e.g. the mass of the electron), there is much debate over how probable/improbable it would have been for the first instants of the big bang to produce a universe in which carbon-based life is possible. (It is believed that in the early big bang, the fundamental constants of nature--like the strength of the gravitational force and the mass of the proton--were "frozen" in place.)
Hmm....actually, after some more thought, I think that the statistical approach is not a good way to answer this question. If our species is the product of unguided natural processes--whether they were probable or improbable processes--either way, our species is not "special". I guess to really answer this question we need to look at the comparative and/or philosophical approach.
I guess in the final analysis, as someone (was it Oscar Wilde?) said, art reflects more on the viewer than on the artwork itself. In that case, I suppose the question of whether humans are "special" depends on the values of the individual, not on the qualities of our species per se.
I, for one, definitely consider us special in some sense, though I am quick to qualify this by acknowledging that our uniqueness is one of magnitude rather than kind. There is certainly no magical, absolute barrier between humans and all other animals. I guess I would think of us as special in the same way that I would think of a small flower....it may not have much cosmic significance, but it's still special as long as I appreciate it. *edit: Kind of an egocentric view, isn't it?