The Human Animal (Humans)

by dhw, Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 12:17 (5582 days ago) @ xeno6696

Matt: Adler takes the "slippery slope" that if we differ only in degree [from animals] then we cannot condemn the acts of the Nazis in principle. - I haven't read Adler's book, so I can only discuss the issues as you put them. - I don't know of any other social animal that systematically sets about slaughtering, enslaving, or experimenting on members of its own species (humankind), let alone of its own group (German Jews). When animals kill their own kind, it's usually through a challenge from within or from outside the group. It's true that they sometimes kill weaker or defective members, but this is a natural way of assisting the survival of the species. Even slavemaking ants act strictly in accordance with what is necessary for their survival. I would argue that our own social codes are extensions of those that govern animal societies, and are devised for the wellbeing of the species (more complex than survival, but still related to it). The Nazis ... and alas many other groups of humans before and since ... violated those codes, and the only grounds for not condemning their actions would be the absurd claim that Jews and other non-Aryans were not members of the human species. - One can, however, invert the argument and say that since man is the only animal capable of killing etc. for ideological reasons, that makes him different in kind rather than degree. It is, as you say, a slippery slope, and like yourself I can't say I'm particularly bothered either way. - As regards your second point, the argument that if we remove God (or man's special place) from the equation, then "everything means nothing" has always seemed depressingly lugubrious to me. Of course we know that all our experiences are transient, but that doesn't mean that the present is meaningless. I would rather be happy/pain-free/laughing at this moment than miserable/in agony/weeping. Multiply that by a lifetime, and you have a lifetime of meaning. Multiply that by the number of people whose moments you can change from tears to laughter, and you have another collection of meanings. Why does meaning have to depend on eternity, on an unknown outside force, or on a special place? - I think you and I may have found some common ground here!