According to the logic of evolution Singer is possibly correct. There is not strictly secular argument that can justify treating animals with with a different ethical model than humans. To some this may seem like a world filled with rainbows and butterflies. Humans treating animals with respect and acknowledging there inherent worth. However the logical conclusion of this way of thinking also has a dark side. In the past the idea of human rights has been based on a human exceptionalism. That is the idea that man is imbued by God or the universe with an inherent worth and therefore we must treat or fellow man with a certain degree of respect and dignity. If we remove this from the equation than you ethics are a house of cards. Because there are two equally logical conclusions: one is that every living thing with similar characteristics is equal and should be treated with a certain respect. But the other is that I owe no fealty except to myself and that I shall treat others as I please with my only consideration being how it benefits me. In other words it makes exactly equal sense that everything should have inherent rights and that nothing should have inherent rights.

Agreed. If you're stronger, you can kill the competition to increase your chance of survival and success- might makes right. This evolutionary principle was used to justify the greatest atrocities of the 20th century. A modest guess is 100 million people died because of the pseudo-scientific philosophy- mostly in countries during "peace-time."

Evolution, which clearly justifies genocide and other unspeakable horrors, is completely incompatible with Christianity which teaches that there's no reward for personal success here on earth. In fact "those who seek to gain their lives will loose them."

I quibble with the language you use. Evolution does not justify anything. Evolution is a process, a natural process such as the flow of water. So, any species that is not conscious of what it is doing may eliminate or horrify another species to advance its survivability, and no one or nothing will protest. However, we humans are not such. We are conscious. We have the ability to step outside of the process of which we are a part and ask questions about ourselves and the "big picture", much like stepping out of the river to contemplate its course, its use, its value, or its beauty. We are the only species (that I know of) that grants "rights", and we grant them only to ourselves - behavior that further enhances our survivability. I don't think we any longer do so in order to advance our numbers, as we have plenty of numbers now for eons. We do it because as we evolve we can empathize more with other humans and realize they want the same things everywhere; hence, we "grant" all humans the "right" to various life enhancements.

We have, of course, the option to extend these rights to other species as our ability to empathize and relate evolves.

Here's an interesting idea: Many thousands of years ago there were two human strains on the planet - ourselves and the Neanderthals. They were another type of human, an amazing idea to me. Apparently, they were gentle creatures and pretty smart, for the times. We wiped them out. What if they were alive today still? How would we treat them? Perhaps these questions around primates is a way to make amends for past brutalizations.

crowe:

Perhaps these questions around primates is a way to make amends for past brutalizations.

Although I agree in general with your point, I think it's quite a stretch to suppose the people who are concerned about the "rights" of primates are trying to make amends for an extinction about which most of them are entirely ignorant.

Of course it is. I offered that line in jest.

Evolution is two different things and you are right I should have distinguished between them. First evolution is an observable process by which things change due to pressures exerted upon them. The second is a materialistic idea that life and the universe have arisen out of natural processes that do not require a creator. I am talking about the ethical logic that arises from the idea not the process. As for our ability to see the big picture you are of course right. However it seems to me that that ability to see the big picture can lead to atrocities just as easily as it leads to empathy. Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Pol Pot all had a big picture of the Utopia they were building.

You make a very good point. Nowhere on any of the screens is the directive showing us how to be in the world, as being in the world is a value judgment. Stalin very rationally created a society that wonderfully sustained his vision of humanity. We (all the We, not you and me, I assume) cannot agree on how humanity lives best in the world. Clearly, we have not mastered how to maximize life supporting cultures for even our own species. Time and again we have created chaos, misery, inequities, and we have appealed to what many of us would describe as the most selfish and base human traits (notice I didn't say animal instincts!). So, in many ways a discussion of what protections (if "rights" is too loaded of a word) to afford to animals, even animals close to us in DNA, is still lost in the cacophony of agreeing on basic human protections, or rights.

I would posit that our position in nature makes it our responsibility to care for every aspect of the planet and its inhabitants, since we have usurped all natural functions, but so far we are so not up to the job because we can't even manage ourselves.

crowe:

Of course it is. I offered that line in jest.

Ah. Gotcha. Thank goodness.

Inquisitor says Evolution is "a materialistic idea that life and the universe have arisen out of natural processes that do not require a creator." While strictly true that Evolution does not require a creator it certainly does not preclude one. Unless the only creator you will allow is that of literal Biblical interpretation. If we "are stardust" as Joni Mitchel would have it, then the "creator" is simply that entity that caused the star dust to be sprinkled and inititated the process. Natural selection leading to species evolution is simply the mechanism employed. Why an all powerful creator would require or choose such a complicated process is another question entirely. But of course "God works in mysterious ways." The point is that a materialistic, scientific world view no more precludes a moral perspective than religious dogma guarantees one.

The point of my second post was to clarify that when I said evolution in my first post I was referring to an idea that was materialistic and precluded a creator. I know as do most people that evolution the process of change happens and do believe that it plays a part in the natural world changing. I should have been more clear.

In reality my reply was probably morre substantively targeted at Mestastio who said "Evolution, which clearly justifies genocide and other unspeakable horrors," when, of course, it does no such thing. Specious notions about "the survival of the fittest" have certainly been used to justify all manner of atrocity. But notions of Christian exceptionalism have been equally mis-applied.

“Evolution is two different things and you are right I should have distinguished between them. First evolution is an observable process by which things change due to pressures exerted upon them.”

>>Not ‘things’, and not changes of any sort: evolution (unless you’re using the word merely as a synonym for ‘change’) refers only to changes in the genetic composition of populations of living organisms over time.

“The second is a materialistic idea that life and the universe have arisen out of natural processes that do not require a creator.”

>>Evolution, however, makes no statements whatsoever regarding the origin of either life itself or the universe. You’re inappropriately conflating evolution with biogensis and cosmology. Note also that neither evolution in specific nor science in general do not state or predict that life or the universe would not require a creator. In fact, neither make any statements whatsoever regarding supernatural entities. Science merely employs a methodologic naturalism for reasons of utility: only by restricting explanations to natural mechanisms, entities and forces is it possible to distinguish between a good explanation and a bad one—for that matter, only by doing so does a derived model possess any explanatory power. After all, if one is going to invoke a supernatural entity to account for observations re: the natural universe any such entity will do (“God did it” and “Leprechauns did it” are indistinguishable on any basis other than personal taste) and neither actually explains anything—they simply avoid the necessity of deriving an explanation by writing everything off to magic.

“I am talking about the ethical logic that arises from the idea not the process. “

>>No ‘ethical logic’ proceeds from evolutionary models however: evolution describes only we observe to occur, it makes no statements regarding what should occur or how human beings ethically should behave.

Evolutionary theory informs moral conduct to no greater extent than does gravity or the periodic table of the elements.

You got yourself a helluva a tautalogy there hombre. To distill you say according to methodologic naturalism those theories which fit within methodological naturalism are good those that don't are bad. So if you say I only wish to acknowledge the possibility of explanations that are based in natural phenomona by which you actually mean physical phenomona that is fine but it has no more inherent logic than saying a Leprechaun created the universe. Interestingly even the language you use is impregnated with tautological thinking. You use the phrase natural universe to mean physical universe which precludes a metaphysical basis for the physical. Thus you assume away the essential dilemna which is what is natural/the nature of the universe? Is it entirely physical or is there a metaphysical? This concludes the philosophical portion.

Second it is foolish to say that physical phenomona don't impinge on moral conduct especially if there is nothing besides that which is observable. What other basis do we have for forming moral conclusions besides the physical structures and systems which govern the world around us? Does morality arise sui generis from the minds of human thinkers? If so can I be one too and make up my own?

Finally don't be silly origin theory whether biological or cosmological is by definition not directly observable, verifiable, or inviolate. It is highly subject to the confirmation bias. Gravity is observable, verifiable through controlled experiments and has proved to be universally constant. The periodic table of elements on the other hand is a human tool used to organize the elements in a way useful to our minds. It could actually be set up in a number of other logical ways and still be accurate.

“You got yourself a helluva a tautalogy there hombre. To distill you say according to methodologic naturalism those theories which fit within methodological naturalism are good those that don't are bad.”

>>No, I don’t. Theories that fit the constraints may be good or bad, but it’s only if one uses methodologic naturalism that it’s possible to distinguish between a good and a bad theory. Theories that embrace supernatural forces or entities aren’t testable.

“So if you say I only wish to acknowledge the possibility of explanations that are based in natural phenomona by which you actually mean physical phenomona that is fine but it has no more inherent logic than saying a Leprechaun created the universe.”

>>Saying a leprechaun created the universe is a supernatural explanation and as such is indistinguishable from any other supernatural explanation (such as “God created the universe” on any basis other than personal preference.

“Interestingly even the language you use is impregnated with tautological thinking. You use the phrase natural universe to mean physical universe which precludes a metaphysical basis for the physical.”

>>How does it preclude a metaphysical basis? Metaphysics simply isn’t of any real utility nor does it offer any real explanatory power.

“Thus you assume away the essential dilemna which is what is natural/the nature of the universe? Is it entirely physical or is there a metaphysical? This concludes the philosophical portion.”

>>Thank god—a little sophomoric wordsmithing goes a long way.

“Second it is foolish to say that physical phenomona don't impinge on moral conduct especially if there is nothing besides that which is observable.”

>>Physical phenomena may impinge upon moral conduct—for example by constraining what behaviors we are and are not capable of exhibiting—but neither big bang cosmology nor biological evolution makes any statements whatsoever regarding what actions should be considered moral or immoral.

“What other basis do we have for forming moral conclusions besides the physical structures and systems which govern the world around us?”

>>Ethical precepts are primarily derived from observed utility.

“Does morality arise sui generis from the minds of human thinkers? If so can I be one too and make up my own?”

>>Morality arises from subjective religious articles of faith. Ethics arises principally from observed utility by logical deduction—that which is observed to contribute to the continued functioning of human society is seen to be ethical, and laws often are crafted to enforce compliance.

“Finally don't be silly origin theory whether biological or cosmological is by definition not directly observable, verifiable, or inviolate.”

>>The fact that something isn’t directly observable isn’t an issue, as events in the past that were not observed may leave evidence which persists and may be examined in the present (for example, cosmic background radiation and the expansion of the universe with respect to cosmology, and fossils and genetic and peptide homologies with respect to biological evolution.)

“It is highly subject to the confirmation bias. Gravity is observable, verifiable through controlled experiments and has proved to be universally constant. “

>>Biological evolution similarly is observable, both in controlled laboratory settings and uncontrolled in the wild. These observations include speciation events, which by definition represents macroevolution.

“The periodic table of elements on the other hand is a human tool used to organize the elements in a way useful to our minds. It could actually be set up in a number of other logical ways and still be accurate.”

>>It’s accurate because the theoretical principle which underlies its construction—the theory of atomic structure—is valid. Setting it up any other way would have to be done with respect to this understanding, just as phylogenetic trees are set up on the basis of indicators of evolutionary descent.

Observed utility means what?