Tuesday, March 09, 2010

Dominion and Dominance


Once upon a time, everyone who mattered agreed on everything worth thinking about, thanks to the beneficent influence of Judeo-Christian Values (don't let that hyphen fool you, friend; there is not the slightest fissure in this monolith).

In those days, anyone who wanted to settle an argument had only to consult and interpret the Talmud, or the Bible, or the Pope, or the local pastor, or a vision granted by God Himself. There was no quibbling, no drama, no endless disputation over vexing questions like the moral status of animals.

Then along came modernity and postmodernity. And suddenly, it became fashionable not only to speak of animals as though they were something more than an ambulatory buffet straight outta Cockaigne, but also to imagine that science could actually shed some sort of light on their so-called "consciousness." If our Founding Fathers were alive today, they'd be spinning in their graves!

That story, which is arguably more fanciful than anything that appears in the Bible, comes to us from Peter Heck:

One of the most serious consequences coming from our society's collective abandonment of the Judeo-Christian ethic handed down to us from our Founders is our startling tendency to drift from truth into utter confusion....

Take for example what recently occurred at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The fascinating topic of conversation (please note the sarcasm) was the ethical and policy implications of dolphin intelligence. In other words, should we grant dolphins some form of human rights that would protect them to a greater degree than other animals?
Perhaps because he realizes that this is not an obviously ridiculous question, Heck grabs his toboggan and dashes for the nearest slippery slope: If dolphins are special, then so are cats and dogs and rabbits, and the next thing you know, taking antibiotics for bubonic plague will be seen as an act of speciesist genocide against Yersinia pestis.

He calls that religion, as the song says. Never mind Balaam's ass, and the lion lying down with the calf. Never mind St. Basil's plea for God to "enlarge within us the sense of fellowship with all living things, our brothers the animals to whom Thou gavest the earth in common with us." Never mind the medieval animal trials at which field mice -- who had certain rights in consequence of their ancestors' presence on Noah's Ark -- were permitted, through their appointed counsel, to "show cause for their conduct by pleading their exigencies and distress." What about our needs?

Anyway, some scientists say dolphins might be people. Or "nonhuman persons," which is just as bad, if not worse.
This nonsense is the logical end to an illogical worldview. It is exactly what to expect when your culture has torn itself free from any foundational moorings.
Like Christianity, the scientific worldview has pretty deep roots (as does the idea of "nonhuman personhood," for that matter). However, it can't provide a "foundational mooring," because it's the product of inherently flawed human reasoning, unlike Papal infallibility or the Rapture or the idea that human life begins at conception whether that dirty slut likes it or not.

Besides, man's "position of superiority allows him to exercise dominion and dominance over all other living things," as is clearly implied somewhere or other in this book I have right here. Which proves that cruelty to animals is OK, so long as it's not "unbridled" cruelty. (Behold the clear guidance we receive once we submit to "a transcendent moral authority"!)

Let's accept that Heck sincerely believes we have an obligation to refrain from "unbridled cruelty" (whatever that is) toward at least some animals (the ones whose talents are cited by creationists as arguments against evolution, for instance). It seems logical that if we truly want to avoid being crueler than God intended us to be, it'd be helpful to have some rough idea of what a given animal can and can't feel and know. It'd be a start, at least.

This is not a question that's easily resolved by Biblical exegesis. There's no clear evidence that God smiles down on veal crates, but weeps over dog fights (especially if there's gambling involved). Hence the importance -- even to fundamentalists -- of a scientific discussion on the ethical and policy implications of animal intelligence, which can't actually be dismissed by whining over semantics or calling people stupid.

Heck complains about "the shifting sands of prevailing popular opinion," without noting that you can go to jail, today, for doing things to animals that were formerly viewed as good clean fun. Presumably, Heck is glad not to see cockfights and bear-baiting on every street corner. If so, he himself has strayed from the hallowed path of tradition and fallen prey to the whims of fashion, just like the fags and Frenchmen he deplores.

But needless to say, he draws a different lesson from all this:
[W]hen you begin with the assumption that there is no Creator, the distinction of humanity quickly gets lost in a fog of philosophy.
So that's how it happened.

The idea that science can't or shouldn't attempt to give us a clearer picture of our obligations toward animals is especially rich coming from the type of person who can detect a soul in the ultrasound image of a month-old fetus. Which is, of course, what this whole tortuous argument is ultimately about, and why Heck's version of "the Judeo-Christian ethic" is so wonderfully simple: Man's dominion over animals is as self-evident and righteous as man's dominion over women:
The end result is a society that would grant dolphins and apes the unalienable right to life while denying baby humans in the womb the same. That is the very definition of confusion...tragic confusion.
I don't suppose it'll surprise anyone to learn that baby humans in Iraqi wombs have no "inalienable right to life," according to Heck, and can be slaughtered wholesale so long as "Iraq becomes a valuable ally...one whose democratic processes rub off on its neighbors, thus transforming the world’s most volatile region into stability." (And if things don't actually work out that way...well, the road to Heaven is paved with good intentions.)

Given what we routinely do to human beings, for fun and profit, I think it's safe to say that dolphins may find "personhood" to be a bit less of a blessing than Heck imagines.

(Illustration: "The Peaceable Kingdom" by Edward Hicks, 1834.)

27 comments:

chris said...

Heckuva job Peter!
And you too Phila. I thought he was going to say he wasn't descended from no damn dirty ape. I guess I should have seen the fetus coming. Gah!
They never quit do they?

OT: This is very cool.

Tacitus Voltaire said...

[W]hen you begin with the assumption that there is no Creator, the distinction of humanity quickly gets lost in a fog of philosophy

it's that damn ambiguity, again. it's a-gonna kill us all

Lars said...

This all sounds so drearily familiar to those of us who've had the benefit of a Catholic education (such as myself, K-13) and showed the slightest interest in the welfare of the non-human portion of Creation (just about all of it, but no matter).
I frequently thought, as I grew up, that this general school of thought, encouraging us to discount the ethical weight of non-human organisms and disregard them utterly in any contest between their interests and those of humans, was a justification for a great deal of really crappy behaviour.
Well, of course it was; the evidence for that was all around, I'm being disingenuous here. But this reflects a difficulty that I'm bringing up specifically in this venue - is there a word or rhetorical construction which refers to a belief or position which one adopts pre-hoc, in order to allow one to adopt another belief or position that one finds satisfactory in some way not otherwise requiring logical justification? An example would be the right-wing attitude towards climate science - it's necessary that it be wrong, and that it be shown to be wrong, because if it's correct, it's harder to justify being a libertarian, or at least to convince the rest of us that being a libertarian is a desirable state for anyone. Whether or not it is correct in itself is irrelevant, it must be incorrect in order that a more basic position is supported for its own sake. Or the present case - it's necessary that humans have dominion over the beasts of the field, and God must have established us in this position, because that means that we can treat them any old way that we like and it's OK because we're on the top rung of the Ladder of Existence and we're here by divine fiat. Any contribution from science that doesn't support this must be undermined not because it is incorrect in scientific terms (although it is highly preferable to make it sound as though your criticisms have a firm scientific footing - should have mentioned this "sound science" aspect) but because it serves as a falsification of the whole edifice of thought.
I'm not sure that I'm putting this very well. The closest that I've been able to come by myself for the concept that I'm trying to define is "compossible" but I'm not sure that this passes muster.
Any more informed comment would be welcome. Phila, I hope that this doesn't constitute thread-jacking.

Phila said...

Lars,

It seems like you're talking about affirming the consequent.

1. If AGW is wrong, then libertarianism is correct.
2. Libertarianism is correct.
3. Therefore, AGW is wrong.

Leslie Guinan said...

As I posted this piece on FB, the "security" words that came up were "nightmare socrates." But I'm sure it was just a coincidence.

Jazzbumpa said...

I have no prior experience with Heck. After clicking your "according to Heck" link, I want no future experience with him. I don't believe I have ever seen such a concentrated density of total wrongness. Well - except in the writings of Ron Paul, Michelle Malkin, Michael Steele . . .

Oh, all right. It's not that rare.

I think it is beyond dispute that Carter was the most principled president since Truman.

Heck's assessment of FDR is pure Shlaes/Chicago School denialism.

Bush is a lazy, ignorant, arrogant, privileged, drug-addled cardboard cutout of a man who failed at every position he was placed in - including husband and father, if you have any interest in family values. His one obvious skill set was in executions and mass murder. The idea that history will be kind to him presupposes a future where the Texas legislature gets to dictate the content of all the text books.

And why not - we're already totally fucked.

JzB

Phila said...

Though of course, that deals with the form of argument rather than the motivation for it.

So it's a matter of cognitive bias. How about the Semmelweis reflex?

Phila said...

I think it is beyond dispute that Carter was the most principled president since Truman.

I wouldn't be inclined to argue, especially since it's fairly faint praise.

Frank said...

The overwhelming majority of those slaughtered in Iraq have been killed by Shia and Sunni groups, who are motivated by a religious imperative.

Rmj said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rmj said...

(Sorry for the clutter; I keep forgetting preview is my friend.)

The idea that history will be kind to him presupposes a future where the Texas legislature gets to dictate the content of all the text books.

Texas State Board of Education. All independently elected. The Texas Legislature basically writes laws and has some authority (not much) over state agencies; largely through their budgets.

I don't know why I even bother to point that out, and risk sounding churlish, except that Texas is even weirder than anybody (including most life-long Texans, likes yours truly) imagine. Our state Constitution requires EVERYBODY be elected directly to office. So the AG is not "Perry's AG" (as TPM recently mis-labeled him), and the Governor really has no power (except to fill empty positions for agency heads who are not elected). Even judges in Texas are elected.

Yup, it really is a whole other country and, like California, suffers from a surfeit of elective representation and direct democracy.

As for Heck, well, as I said once before: "Ignorance is a state that allows us a purer contemplation of truth, uncluttered as our minds are by knowledge and reasoning that might obstruct our facile insights based on nothing."

8:01 AM

Rmj said...

The overwhelming majority of those slaughtered in Iraq have been killed by Shia and Sunni groups, who are motivated by a religious imperative.

Assuming your claim to be true (which I don't, but arguendo), the "imperative" is not religious, but one of identity. Which, yes, is based on religion, but the friction between the groups is not religiously based or "motivated." It is more a distinction between social groups leading to power struggles over who will be in charge, based on a fear that the group in charge will persecute the group not in charge.

See, e.g., Bosnia, or even Northern Ireland. Specifically in Northern Ireland the battles were not religious, although they divided on religious grounds. But the ordinary people on either side of that divide were so ignorant of the religious practices of the other that it's impossible to say their fights were "religiously motivated." And the "ethnic cleansing" was all about purity of identity, not exclusion of religious practices.

But, of course, in both cases they're European, too, and therefore presumptively rational. Funny how "religiously motivated" behavior isn't, when it's in Europe, and "is," when it's in the "Middle East."

Which is decidedly NOT Europe.

Phila said...

The overwhelming majority of those slaughtered in Iraq have been killed by Shia and Sunni groups, who are motivated by a religious imperative.

You seem to be missing the point. Heck claims that "human babies in the womb" have an "inalienable right to life." He also made a basically utilitarian argument for the Iraq War: it's acceptable if our bombs and bullets kill "human babies in the womb," so long as it benefits other people in the long run. Which sounds very much as if this right to life is not inalienable at all.

Perhaps he means American babies. If so, he should probably come out and say so.

Jazzbumpa said...

Rmj -

I respect your right to be churlish. Hell, if you're a life long Texan, you've earned it.

I've been to Texas a few times and always enjoyed it. the people are friendly and hospitable, one on one.

But that is orthogonal to political sanity.

Phila -

I seriously think Carter had too much principle and strength of character to be a good president. Contrast Clinton, who was not too terribly bad, despite being to the right of Eisenhower.

Moloch help us all,
JzB

Rmj said...

You seem to be missing the point. Heck claims that "human babies in the womb" have an "inalienable right to life." He also made a basically utilitarian argument for the Iraq War: it's acceptable if our bombs and bullets kill "human babies in the womb," so long as it benefits other people in the long run. Which sounds very much as if this right to life is not inalienable at all.

I would presume he also means that, once they're born, they're on their own. "Social justice" and the like interferes with the natural order of the universe, donchaknow. If the market kills 'em, it's God's will!

I'd guess. Not gonna bother to read Heck to find out. I'm happy for Phila to do that for me. After all, somebody's gotta warn me when it's time to leave the coalmine.

Phila said...


As for Heck, well, as I said once before: "Ignorance is a state that allows us a purer contemplation of truth, uncluttered as our minds are by knowledge and reasoning that might obstruct our facile insights based on nothing."


Bears repeating, infinitely.

It's funny...as one of these "animal rights" weirdos, I have some legitimate complaints about the "Judeo-Christian ethic," from the Torah right down to Levinas. At the same time, I recognize an opposite tendency, from the Torah right down to, say, Derrida (who basically gets this issue right, IMO).

Apparently, it isn't simply what I would like it to be. Go figure!

Phila said...

I seriously think Carter had too much principle and strength of character to be a good president.

It's definitely not in the job description.

I've been to Texas a few times and always enjoyed it. the people are friendly and hospitable, one on one.

People have always been incredibly kind to me there. I'm guessing they were overawed by my matchless physical beauty and my aura of gentle decency.

Rmj said...

It's funny...as one of these "animal rights" weirdos, I have some legitimate complaints about the "Judeo-Christian ethic," from the Torah right down to Levinas. At the same time, I recognize an opposite tendency, from the Torah right down to, say, Derrida (who basically gets this issue right, IMO).

Apparently, it isn't simply what I would like it to be. Go figure!


Seminary taught me the most fruitful way to understand the Hebraic/Jewish/Christian scriptures is to understand them as a conversation (the Hebrews and Jews understood this to the point of providing a complex commentary on both the conversation of the Scriptures, and the conversation about the conversation. And way before post-modernism!). If you see it as like-minded people trying to resolve important as well as minor issues, you get a much better understanding of the sophia intended.

Much easier, of course, to reduce it to a set of rules, or, to put it in the context of Roman Catholicism (as someone else did here in comments), to ignore Francis of Assisi or Basil in favor of the "dominionist" ideal that others claim to find in Genesis (although that's Genesis 2, not Genesis 1. As I said, a conversation, not a conclusion, is the better schema.)

Rmj said...

People have always been incredibly kind to me there. I'm guessing they were overawed by my matchless physical beauty and my aura of gentle decency.

Nah, native Texan hospitality is based on the root of "Texas" which is "Tejas," which is interpreted (rightly or wrongly) as "friendly."

That, and our mommas taught us to be nice to those less fortunate than us, like Yankees and other non-Texans.

Anonymous said...

"Babies in the womb", assuming they are all people, don't have the same rights as autonomous individuals because they inhabit the bodies of women who have rights to their bodies. That this leads to the impossibility to come to some kind of abstract conclusions about how "rights" of "babies in the womb" could negate rights of women to make decisions about their bodies doesn't negate the rights of women to make those decisions.

What's important for the state is the fact that the state doesn't have a rights over a woman's body that are superior to her right to control her body. It doesn't have the right to take that decision from her because there isn't a sufficient public impact to prevent her from exercising it.

Also, it's a fact supported by history, that outlawing abortion isn't abolishing abortion, it's only making safe, medically sound abortion impossible which leads, inevitably to abortions that are dangerous and deadly.

As to animals, they have rights. The Bible deals with human beings and their relation to reality. It's a record of changing, perhaps evolving, human experience. That record is of varying quality and usefulness. It doesn't stand in its entirety for all time. THAT people practice dominion over the Earth is unfortunate and not simply restricted to people who use the Bible. Watching a marine biologist walking down a beach, picking up shell fish and prying them open to look at them, before throwing the dying organism back on the beach is instructive.

Anthony McCarthy

Phila said...

As I said, a conversation, not a conclusion, is the better schema.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Phila said...

THAT people practice dominion over the Earth is unfortunate and not simply restricted to people who use the Bible.

No one said or implied that it was, as far as I know.

Watching a marine biologist walking down a beach, picking up shell fish and prying them open to look at them, before throwing the dying organism back on the beach is instructive.

If I needed instruction on that point, I wouldn't have to drive all the way to the beach to get it.

Lars said...

Tried to get through and say this earlier, but got lost in transmission, I guess...

Phila, thanks for the insight. "Affirming the consequent". Yeah, that sounds like it.

Phila said...

Lars,

I had an afterthought you might've missed, 'cause I neglected to address it to you (and also phrased it kind of obscurely).

Affirming the consequent relates to the logical form of an argument, rather than motivation or bias. For that reason, I think the Semmelweis reflex is more to the point.

Jazzbumpa said...

"Ignorance is a state that allows us a purer contemplation of truth, uncluttered as our minds are by knowledge and reasoning that might obstruct our facile insights based on nothing."

This is so damned close to what it actually says in Russell Kirk's THE CONSERVATIVE MIND that, except for the last three words, it might actually be a condensed paraphrase of Kirk's (and evidently Edmund Burke's) attitude toward ignorance.

I paraphrase another one of his scintillating points like this: Prejudice is a good thing because it obviates the necessity for all that tedious mucking around with actual thinking.

This sounds like snark, but, honest to moloch, Kirk really does speak of ignorance and prejudice in highly favorable terms.

No wonder WASF,
JzB

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't have to drive all the way to the beach to get it.

I was recounting an experience.

Anthony McCarthy

Phila said...


I was recounting an experience.

Anthony McCarthy


Fair enough. My own convictions render me a bit hypersensitive on this issue.

And of course, I tend to detect traces of the worst aspects of theology in materialism, and vice versa. It's pretty light work, thanks (no doubt) to confirmation bias.