Human Evolution

[ydoaPs]

To yourdad

 

My choice is based on brain power. A tetraplegic human is more a 'person' than a chimp because he/she has more brain power. A chimp is more a 'person' than an anencephalic for the same reason.

 

DING DING DING!

 

Person is morally relevant; human is not.

[Mr Skeptic]

Unless you are suggesting religion is prerequisite for something to be a person, I think you misunderstood. I was replying to: "A very good story, but it is based on deceit. In using the term people, he implies that they would at least potentially have been, or be in the future, capable of certain attributes, which it turns out that they don't have."

 

I apologize for any misunderstanding.

 

Sorry about that. I had just found an interesting and relevant New Scientist article, and just tacked that onto the end of my post.

 

According to the definition I suggested for person in post 42, "Um, for my purposes, I would consider any entity capable of generalized, abstract thought and some degree of empathy, to be a person," I'd say that chimps are lacking the ability to have generalized, abstract thought. I couldn't talk to them in any intelligible way about, say, particle physics, evolution, or one of Shakespeare's plays. I suspect that John Locke would say that they weren't thinking or intelligent enough. After all, intelligence is a relative term -- I've heard of intelligent fruit flies. Chimps are intelligent compared to most animals, but really stupid compared to people (and yes, I meant people not just humans).

 

But if someone wants to naively take John Locke's definition 'A thinking intelligent being that has reason and reflection and can consider itself itself, the same thinking thing, in different times and places' without assuming that there is a minimum intelligence for this definition, then anything that is self-aware would qualify. Like ALICE, perhaps.

[iNow]

I'd urge you to reconsider your position that "chimps are lacking the ability to have generalized, abstract thought."

 

Further, the particle physics discussion doesn't help, as 98% of the people with whom I interact everyday couldn't talk about this in an intellible way, so that would imply (using the logic above) that they are not "persons" either... which, clearly, they are.

 

Either way, chimps are capable of generalized, abstract thought. If you need me to, I can spend some time tracking down studies which support this assertion.

 

We continue to run into challenges using "intelligence" as a definition, since a clear and applicable set of parameters for the intelligence concept are so consistently absent.

[Mr Skeptic]

I'd urge you to reconsider your position that "chimps are lacking the ability to have generalized, abstract thought."

 

Further, the particle physics discussion doesn't help, as 98% of the people with whom I interact everyday couldn't talk about this in an intellible way, so that would imply (using the logic above) that they are not "persons" either... which, clearly, they are.

 

No, even if they know nothing of the subject of particle physics, you could still hold an intelligible conversation about it with them, and they would learn things about particles, despite never being able to see one. No, they won't be teaching you anything about particle physics, but they will still be able to learn and then ask some questions that show they have some thoughts on the matter.

 

Either way, chimps are capable of generalized, abstract thought. If you need me to, I can spend some time tracking down studies which support this assertion.

 

I know chimps have some (relatively) impressive problem solving ability, and stuff like visual memory (better than untrained humans). But I wouldn't consider any of these abstract, unless some of those puzzles are non-physical. Could a chimp be taught to multiply, for example (and base 1 does not count)?

 

Anyhow, with the difficulties in communication with chimps, I don't see how we could even ask them an abstract question. But I'd definitely like to see some studies to the contrary.

 

We continue to run into challenges using "intelligence" as a definition, since a clear and applicable set of parameters for the intelligence concept are so consistently absent.

 

Yes, that is quite true. Unfortunately, intelligence seems to be an attribute required to be a person, so "person" will remain vague as well.

[SkepticLance]

Whether your definitions are based on IQ, brain power, abstract thinking ability etc., they are all relative. There are no black and white criteria. I suspect that a lot of human morons are less intelligent than a lot of chimps. We have a continuum of brain power ranging from Albert Einstein at one end, and a bacterium at the other. There are no sharp discontinuities where we can say " "beneath this level is a non person." Where we draw the line will always be a subjective decision.

[iNow]

No, even if they know nothing of the subject of particle physics, you could still hold an intelligible conversation about it with them

See, but now you've moved the goal posts away from abstract thought and toward the ability to engage in conversation.

 

This would then imply that mute people are not "persons."

 

You're slipping further and further away from your original point.

 

 

I know chimps have some (relatively) impressive problem solving ability, and stuff like visual memory (better than untrained humans). But I wouldn't consider any of these abstract, unless some of those puzzles are non-physical.

Like I said. I'd urge you to reconsider your position:

 

 

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2001/abstractthought.html

MIT researchers home in on how the brain handles abstract thought

Monkeys in study taught to recognize "same" and "different" images

The study, in which monkeys apply rules about "same" and "different" to a myriad of images, shows that the prefrontal cortex -- the part of the brain directly behind the eyes -- works on the abstract assignment rather than simply recalling the pictures.

 

 

http://www.msu.edu/user/marablek/whal-int.htm

The differences between human mentality and that of the other primates has been shown to be quantitative rather than qualitative; a difference of degree and not of natural kind. Even with such "human" abilities as language and rational, abstract thought, primates seem capable, though to a lesser degree.

 

 

http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/news/inthenews/cognition.html

Primates in the News

Cognition and Learning

 

 

 

 

 

 

Could a chimp be taught to multiply, for example (and base 1 does not count)?

Well, I'd like to point out that here you've moved the goal posts again. First, from abstract thought, then to conversation, now to multiplicative mathematics. Either way, my urge to you for reconsideration of your point remains:

 

 

 

http://research.duke.edu/five-questions-on-monkeys-and-math/

Elizabeth Brannon is an assistant professor of psychology and neuroscience at Duke who studies how human adults, infants and monkeys think about numbers. This is abstract thought that doesn’t necessarily require language.

 

 

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2140091

 

Furthermore, monkeys' performance during these calculations adheres to the same pattern as humans tested on the same nonverbal addition task. Our data demonstrate that nonverbal arithmetic is not unique to humans but is instead part of an evolutionarily primitive system for mathematical thinking shared by monkeys.

 

 

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/10/brannonpnas.html

 

Brannon said the new findings represent further evidence of the fundamental similarity in numerical thinking in human and non-human primates.

 

Said Brannon “This is another piece of the puzzle showing us that the comparison mechanism that the monkeys use is, as far as we can tell, the same mechanism that humans are using.” More broadly, she said, the findings yield insight into the role – or lack of a role – that language plays in the process.

 

“The ability to use language is obviously one of the major differences in the way humans and animals function in the world,” she said. “However, these experiments clearly show that this semantic congruity effect, which we thought was language-dependent, is not.”

 

 

 

I posit that, since the machinery is the same as in humans, then so will be the process. Much like youngsters, once the basic arithemetic is mastered, there is no reason to presume that multiplication abilities would not follow if teaching continued.

 

 

Anyhow, with the difficulties in communication with chimps, I don't see how we could even ask them an abstract question. But I'd definitely like to see some studies to the contrary.

I could pretty easily find more if the above do not quench your intellectual thirst.

[Mr Skeptic]

See, but now you've moved the goal posts away from abstract thought and toward the ability to engage in conversation.

 

This would then imply that mute people are not "persons."

 

You're slipping further and further away from your original point.

 

You misunderstood me. I'm quite capable of having a conversation with a mute person, even with someone who is mute, blind, deaf, and mostly paralyzed (I could use Morse code). But if I am not able to communicate with a chimp, how would I know that they are capable of abstract thought? With humans, the easy communication makes this very easy. Without almost any communication, all sorts of puzzles would have to be made, and abstract puzzles are hard to do.

 

 

 

Like I said. I'd urge you to reconsider your position:

 

OK, I'll have a look.

 

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2001/abstractthought.html

 

I suppose you could call visual classification to be abstract, but is limited in scope (not generalized).

 

http://www.msu.edu/user/marablek/whal-int.htm

 

Again, though, it does not say that they have generalized abstract thought. I don't doubt that they are quite capable in specific areas, but humans are the only ones I know that can supplement their natural cognitive abilities to go beyond what we can normally imagine (such as working out the mathematics for a 4D thing even though we can't imagine it).

 

http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/news/inthenews/cognition.html

 

That is quite a large list of stuff to read. I'll have to get back to you on that.

 

Well, I'd like to point out that here you've moved the goal posts again. First, from abstract thought, then to conversation, now to multiplicative mathematics. Either way, my urge to you for reconsideration of your point remains:

 

No moving of goal posts here. Generalized abstract thought is all I would require (chimps would fulfill my requirement for some empathy). Multiplication is something abstract, but very simple. Anyone capable of generalized abstract thought should be able to learn multiplication. Generalized would mean that the subject matter is not limited in scope.

 

http://research.duke.edu/five-questions-on-monkeys-and-math/

 

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2140091

 

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/10/brannonpnas.html

 

There's a reason that I excluded addition and base 1 math; those are not particularly abstract at all, but based on counting.

 

I posit that, since the machinery is the same as in humans, then so will be the process. Much like youngsters, once the basic arithemetic is mastered, there is no reason to presume that multiplication abilities would not follow if teaching continued.

 

Yes, we retain the same mechanisms that animals use for counting/adding, so there is little difference there... but as for multiplication, that is unlikely to be seen in chimps because it relies on abstract representation of numbers as opposed to quantities.

 

I could pretty easily find more if the above do not quench your intellectual thirst.

 

Well, I still have to look at the vast quantity of links in the Primate Info Net, but I am not convinced. Of course, there are significant difficulties in communicating with and convincing animals to play our little games, but all of the abstract abilities of animals seem to apply only to specific subject areas. Not generalized.

[iNow]

But if I am not able to communicate with a chimp,..

 

What makes you think we are unable to communicate with chimps?

[Mr Skeptic]

What makes you think we are unable to communicate with chimps?

 

Well, if what we have achieved so far counts as communicating with chimps, then I'd have to say they are very stupid. Their ability to communicate with us is extremely limited, leaving open the possibility that much of their intelligence goes unnoticed.

[SkepticLance]

What iNow is getting at, I suspect, is that chimps can be taught to use sign language, and communication can be excellent.

[iNow]

What iNow is getting at, I suspect, is that chimps can be taught to use sign language, and communication can be excellent.

 

...and abstract.

[lucaspa]

Immortal said

 

"there is no such thing has a bad gene or a good gene"

 

I suspect that people suffering from haemophilia or Huntingtons Disease might disagree with you. Some genes are just plain bad, with no redeeming features. No change in environment will miraculously make them good.

 

In general, traits are not absolutely "good" or "bad". BTW, we are speaking of "alleles". In situations of a very high fat diet, haemophilia would indeed be a "good" trait because it would protect the individual from internal blood clots that cause pulmonary embolism or stroke.

 

In Huntington's, in many individuals the symptoms do not manifest until after the individual has children. Thus, from the standpoint of natural selection, Huntington's is neutral.

 

So, if an anencephalic human and a healthy chimp were both it mortal trouble, and you could only save one, you'd save the human simply because it's human?

 

When does humanity cease to be human? How many generations back(or forward)?

 

H. sapiens ceases to be H. sapiens when an individual of the new species is not fully interfertile with H. sapiens. Basic biological species concept.

 

Now, you said "humanity" and "human". Those are not fully biological terms. They have ethical/legal connotations to them. As we have noted in other threads, anthropologists call any species within the genus Homo to be "human". Chimps, of course, are not in that genus.

 

However, sometime in the near future we are going to have to face sapient AI programs and possibly sapient species that are not Homo. We will have to decide whether ethically/legally we consider them "human" and to be treated as we treat other members of H. sapiens.

 

...and abstract.

 

Do you have data on abstract communication with chimps? That is, discussing things like geometry, calculus, philosophy, etc. I haven't seen that data.

[iNow]

Do you have data on abstract communication with chimps? That is, discussing things like geometry, calculus, philosophy, etc. I haven't seen that data.

I was not using such a narrow definition of the abstract concept.

[lucaspa]

Absolutely nothing. So why so concerned about global warming then?

 

What's so special about any life?

 

It's unique. That combination of alleles (unless it is a twin) is not repeated.

 

Those of us arguing against a "special" place for humans are not saying humans are not unique. We are saying that every species is unique in some way. Thus, being "unique" is not enough to make humans "special" compared to every other species.

 

I was not using such a narrow definition of the abstract concept.

 

Then you aren't using it the way scientists are using the term. When anthropologists state that humans have abstract thought but other species do not, that is what they mean.

 

Of course you can get other species to have abstract thought if you change the definition, but that ducks the issue.

 

Please provide data on what you consider "abstract" thought in chimps.

[iNow]

Then you aren't using it the way scientists are using the term. When anthropologists state that humans have abstract thought but other species do not, that is what they mean.

 

Of course you can get other species to have abstract thought if you change the definition, but that ducks the issue.

 

Please provide data on what you consider "abstract" thought in chimps.

 

What about the definition used in the links which I posted in post #56 do you deem "not scientific?"

 

 

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2001/abstractthought.html

You can't teach a monkey an abstract concept such as world peace, but you can teach it -- with much patience and effort -- to apply a general rule to different situations.

<...>

In each test, the animals had to apply the abstract rule of same or different and recall the individual photos. "By far the majority of the neurons were concerned with the abstract concept than with short-term memory," Wallis said. "Much to our surprise, a huge number of neurons had the rules of the game as their primary concern."

[lucaspa]

ParanoiA, species membership is not morally relevant.

 

It is very morally relevant! As animals, we can't apply the moral dictum "thou shalt not kill" to every species. We'd starve. So would every other animal on the planet, because all animal species kill plants (at least).

 

Ethics/morals only apply within a species and to any other species we choose to apply them to. There is no moral obligation to extend morals applied to our species to other species.

 

Let's do the reverse. To a preying mantis, it is moral for the female to bite the head off the male during mating. If species membership is not morally relevant, that makes it moral for female humans to bite the heads off human males during mating. Yet I'm sure that you would find that morally unacceptable.

 

What about the definition used in the links which I posted in post #56 do you deem "not scientific?"

 

 

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2001/abstractthought.html

 

Actually, they are using the definition very close to the one I was getting at with my examples:

 

" "It governs how you decide what behaviors to engage in, how you make decisions, how you decide what to pay attention to, what to do with your life," Miller said.

 

 

"We do not know how, or even whether, prefrontal cortex neurons can encode abstract rules," the authors write. "Virtually nothing is known about how these abstractions are stored in the brain."

 

That is, ideas that are not directly associated with concrete objects. However, I notice their "rules" are directly connected to concrete objects -- what is a match and what isn't.

 

So now we are into discussing levels of abstract thought. Can a monkey abstract out the idea of "sitting" or "redness"?

 

Thank you for providing some data.

 

Ultinately a value system is subjective, and cannot be justified using strict objective criteria. Asking for such is a waste of everyone's time.

 

Yes, ultimately, a value system is based on some statement about what is "good" that you might not be able to prove. However, ultimately, science is based on some statements we can't prove, either.

 

My objection is that ethics and a "value system" cannot be derived from science. Once we get into an ethics system and what individual/species has more or less "value", we are not in science anymore, Dorothy.

 

http://www.msu.edu/user/marablek/whal-int.htm

 

I actually like these 2 paragraphs a lot:

"There is a great disparity among scientists and the general populace concerning non-human intelligence. There are those who want to find and communicate with another intelligent species, almost to the point of over-interpreting data in favor of this hypothesis. There are also those who would only consider another intelligent species to be a technologically competent, tool-using, perhaps even humanoid race. In their extreme, they often put forth criterion of intelligence that would only include humans, often by definition. They tend to explain away most data that points towards other intelligences with complex theories that rely on Occam's Razor 2.

The two most common traits that most skeptical scientists rely on are language and technology (Asimov 1990). These two are seen as the paramount of what sets us apart from other animals. However, by using exactly what sets us apart from other animals as our criterion for intelligence is defining intelligence as human intelligence. Within this framework it is near impossible to find any other species that fulfills our criterion. These two factors are definitely indicators of intelligence, but are not the defining characteristics. Expressing intelligence through technology and language are as much factors of general vocal and manipulative abilities as they are intelligence. "

 

1. I have been saying much the same thing about mistakenly equating intelligence with technology.

2. It shows that you can't use Ockham's Razor to evaluate theories. Instead, it is often misused to come to conclusions you choose for other reasons.

 

The article also stresses

1. The difference in human intelligence (and even abstract thought) is a matter of degree. As I said, "we are talking about levels of abstract thought".

2. How we assess intelligence depends on our ability to communicate with the other species.

 

I posit that, since the machinery is the same as in humans, then so will be the process. Much like youngsters, once the basic arithemetic is mastered, there is no reason to presume that multiplication abilities would not follow if teaching continued.

 

That extrapolation is problematic. Since there are different levels, it is very possible that further abilities are not available. And yes, some humans can grasp addition but not multiplication. Just like most humans can get basic calculus but are not up to the math used in String Theory.

[ydoaPs]

H. sapiens ceases to be H. sapiens when an individual of the new species is not fully interfertile with H. sapiens. Basic biological species concept.

Who is the standard H. Sapiens? Is it me? My grandchild? My great great grandfather? With whom does one have to be able to mate successfully to be considered H. Sapiens? It's not as though a group will be born without the ability to successfully mate with the generation before them. There is no prime mammal.

 

Mules have been born that are fertile. Does that mean horses and donkeys are the same species?

 

What about ring species?

 

As we have noted in other threads, anthropologists call any species within the genus Homo to be "human". Chimps, of course, are not in that genus.

I never said Chimps were human(although some biologists disagree). I did, however, imply that some chimps are people.

 

However, sometime in the near future we are going to have to face sapient AI programs and possibly sapient species that are not Homo. We will have to decide whether ethically/legally we consider them "human" and to be treated as we treat other members of H. sapiens.

"Human" and "Person" are distinctly separate concepts. As I said previously, one of them is morally relevant and the other is not.

 

Do you have data on abstract communication with chimps? That is, discussing things like geometry, calculus, philosophy, etc. I haven't seen that data.

How do you define abstract thought? Chimps have been shown to be able to deceive each other. That shows they have some concept of what other beings are thinking; what they know. It also shows they have a concept of multiple future possibilities.

 

Chimps have been able to associate order to numbers. Is that abstract?

 

It is very morally relevant! As animals, we can't apply the moral dictum "thou shalt not kill" to every species.

We'd starve. So would every other animal on the planet, because all animal species kill plants (at least).

I didn't say to treat all species the same. In fact, when I said species membership is irrelevant, I meant species membership is irrelevant. Properties of individuals should be considered(however properties of the majority of the species can be used as a general thumbrule in many circumstances). To treat a being solely based on it's species is not only speciest, but tantamount to nepotism in ethical consideration.

 

Ethics/morals only apply within a species and to any other species we choose to apply them to. There is no moral obligation to extend morals applied to our species to other species.

To easily cast aside the well being of people because they don't fit into your arbitrarily drawn group(again, where does our species end. See Dawkins quote above.) is frankly sickening. What makes it permissible to discriminate against sentient beings simply because they are not in your group? Why stop at species? Why not draw the line at race or sex? Hell, why not choose occupation or location?

 

Let's do the reverse. To a preying mantis, it is moral for the female to bite the head off the male during mating. If species membership is not morally relevant, that makes it moral for female humans to bite the heads off human males during mating.

Lovely strawman there. Is the mantis a person? Oh, it isn't? Well, it's not a fair comparison then, is it?

 

If you want to hear it expressed better, try Rethinking Life and Death. It's a great read.

[PhDP]

Who decided that 'intelligence' or 'conscience' were the criteria to evaluate the moral value of an organism ? Of course, it's just a coicidence that everyone here share these traits...

 

...it's just another attempt to rationalize the irrational. Many mammals have codes of conducts, we're no different. And of course, ultimately, they are made to secure our own survival within this society of interdependence we're in. So there is a rational reason why we care for other humans, but it's based on a subjective experience, humans are not more valuable than other being from an objective point of view. But of course, we're not objective when it comes to morality...

 

Any extension to other animals makes no sense. It's probably based on the fact that it's easier to us to feel empathy for a similar organism like a gorilla.

[lucaspa]

Who is the standard H. Sapiens? Is it me? My grandchild? My great great grandfather? With whom does one have to be able to mate successfully to be considered H. Sapiens? It's not as though a group will be born without the ability to successfully mate with the generation before them. There is no prime mammal.

 

As you are noting, speciation does not happen in a generation. It is a process that covers hundreds/thousands of generations and is a gradual process. What you are talking about is a "chronospecies". If we could take Turkana boy (H. erectus) and bring him forward in time we would find that he could not interbreed and produce fertile offpsring with today's people. He would be a separate species. Where exactly in the sequence of generations did this happen? There is no "exact" spot. If we kept the continuity of the generations then yes, every generation would be able to interbreed with the generation before and after. And yet, H. erectus and H. sapiens are separate species.

 

Ring species are an example of allopatric speciation -- geographical speciation. And yes, they are in the process of reproductive isolation. If the chain of populations is ever broken, you would have 2 species where now there is one.

 

Because speciation (reproductive isolation) happens to population and occurs over hundreds/thousands of generations, we can only tell when it happens but cannot pinpoint a precise moment in time when it does.

 

However, that doesn't stop us from noting that humans and chimps are separate species. We do not interbreed to produce fertile offspring.

 

I never said Chimps were human(although some biologists disagree). I did, however, imply that some chimps are people. "Human" and "Person" are distinctly separate concepts. As I said previously, one of them is morally relevant and the other is not.

 

They are different concepts, but they are both morally relevant. H. sapiens is a member of our species. "People" is an ethical/legal term we apply to deciding who benefits from moral/ethical principles. Within H. sapiens we don't consider all members to be "people". For instance, Terry Schiavo lost her status as "person" and thus could be legally and ethically killed. Many people do not consider fertilized ova to be "people", even tho they are members of H. sapiens.

 

You want to extend "people" beyond H. sapiens. Specifically to chimps. But there are morally relevant issues in doing so. Now, in principle I am willing to entertain the possibility of extending the concept of "person" to non H. sapiens. Sapient species from other planets or sufficiently aware artificial intelligences, for instance.

 

However, the question remains the criteria for doing so. IMO, chimps do not meet the criteria. Although there is no qualitative mental distinction between chimp mentality and ours, there is a quantitative difference such that IMO chimps should not qualify.

 

How do you define abstract thought? Chimps have been shown to be able to deceive each other. That shows they have some concept of what other beings are thinking; what they know. It also shows they have a concept of multiple future possibilities.

 

And that is part of the absence of qualitative distinction. Yes, chimps do show a form of morality and the ability to mentalize the mental state of others. But not to the extent that humans do. Nor to do abstract thought to the extent that humans do.

 

I didn't say to treat all species the same. In fact, when I said species membership is irrelevant, I meant species membership is irrelevant. Properties of individuals should be considered(however properties of the majority of the species can be used as a general thumbrule in many circumstances). To treat a being solely based on it's species is not only speciest, but tantamount to nepotism in ethical consideration.

 

If species membership is irrelevant, then yes, you are advocating treating all species the same. And requiring them to treat us the same way we treat ourselves. If you consider that the properties of the majority of the members of a species are a "thumbrule", then species membership becomes relevant!

 

So what if we are "speciest"? Every species is speciest! If they weren't, they couldn't earn a living. If every species adhered to the rule "thou shalt not kill" then all animals would starve.

 

(again, where does our species end. See Dawkins quote above.) is frankly sickening.

 

In time, our species ends when individuals in the past cannot interbreed with individuals in the present. Even tho we can't make an exact generation when that happens, it does happen. This isn't the first time Dawkins has gotten evolution wrong.

 

What makes it permissible to discriminate against sentient beings simply because they are not in your group?

 

Biology.

 

Lovely strawman there. Is the mantis a person? Oh, it isn't? Well, it's not a fair comparison then, is it?

 

According to your argument that "species is irrelevant", a mantis is a person. Why would you exclude it from being a person? If we go back in that chain Dawkins talks about, then guess what? We come to the common ancestor of H. sapiens and the preying mantis. To use your quote again: "where does our species end?" So why don't you consider the mantis a person and thus, why shouldn't we adopt the morality of the mantis? If you don't consider the mantis a person, why not?

 

Dawkins apparently has it end with chimps and humans. But how does he draw that line?

 

Yourdad, Dawkins is drawing just as much a line as I am, but with far less basis in science. Once Dawkins takes that walk back thru many intermediate species to the common ancestor of humans and chimps and decides that species separated by 8 million years and many intermediate species in both lineages are equally "sentient", then how can he draw any other line? Why doesn't he continue that "walk" and go back to mammalian common ancestor, or the vertebrate common ancestor, or the animal common ancestor, or even back to the last common ancestor? What's stopping him?

 

What Dawkins has done is try to subvert science to his emotions. It's not the first time, or the first 10 times. He's not doing science; he's rationalizing using science. He wants chimps -- for his emotional reasons -- to be considered "people". Fine. But don't subvert science to do so.

 

I at least am sticking with the line that is a biological reality: species. I do not want to see any species go extinct because of human activity. Therefore I would side with Dawkins about protecting chimp habitat. But I can do that on ethical principles that do not include trying to extend ethical principles that are only intraspecies to other species and making absurd statements about "equality" between species.

[iNow]

I'm not sure it's fair to say that "species" memberships are "irrelevant," but it sure does seem an outdated an minimally useful way of looking at modern day genetic understandings.

 

I apologize I cannot add much more than that to the conversation. Lucaspa's knowledge on the biology far exceeds my own.

[SkepticLance]

When we talk about ethics, we are leaving science and entering subjective decision making. Sure, the discoveries of science can be used to support such subjective decisions.

 

The way I see it, there is a coontinuum of mentality extending from humans to bacteria. At the high end, we have humans and other animals of brain power, such as chimps, dolphins and the African grey parrot. We do not have to accord the other intelligent species full human rights, since (probably) none are as intelligent as humans. However, I see room for a recognition of their greater sentience in a lesser recognition of rights. Some kind of code of rights for greater sentience.

 

For example : they may be given the right to life, and adequate space to move in, if living in captivity. The right to mental stimulation when so captured. etc.

[bascule]

BTW, I do think that species membership is morally relevant. As much as I find sexism and racism disgusting, I do embrace speciesm (at least to a certain extant).

 

Species is important for painting broad strokes about the moral relevance of a particular animal, especially if you compare a "healthy adult X" to a "healthy adult Y".

 

However, there are several cases where mere species membership alone doesn't cut it. For example, while I would generally consider humans as having greater intrinsic moral value than pigs, I would say a healthy adult pig has more moral value than an unborn human baby.

[ecoli]

Species is important for painting broad strokes about the moral relevance of a particular animal, especially if you compare a "healthy adult X" to a "healthy adult Y".

 

However, there are several cases where mere species membership alone doesn't cut it. For example, while I would generally consider humans as having greater intrinsic moral value than pigs, I would say a healthy adult pig has more moral value than an unborn human baby.

 

Plus it's easy to try and "mate" with a healthy pig than an unborn baby.

 

edit: by the way, in case that wasn't clear, I was implying that it would make more sense, from an evolutionary perspective, that morality extends from those we have the potential to mate with.

[Mr Skeptic]

However, there are several cases where mere species membership alone doesn't cut it. For example, while I would generally consider humans as having greater intrinsic moral value than pigs, I would say a healthy adult pig has more moral value than an unborn human baby.

 

I do hope that by "unborn" you mean well before the third trimester -- before the brain has developed much.

[PhDP]

For example, while I would generally consider humans as having greater intrinsic moral value than pigs, I would say a healthy adult pig has more moral value than an unborn human baby.

 

I disagree.

 

Again, you chose a trait, and for some unexplained reasons you've decided that this trait could be used as a measure of intrinsic moral value. What if I choose that organisms with lower body size have a greater intrinsic moral value ? Why not ? If moral value is based on a trait, how can we choose this trait ?

 

Where's the philosophy forum when we need it