An Essay on the topic my mind keeps turning to of late - the notion that not all Atheists are also Vegans (or if not 'Vegan', at least a practicing a diet and lifestyle that does not include causing the death or suffering of complex mammals and avians)
I often imagine reading such an essay in front of an audience of Atheists at an Atheist convention, and I wonder what the reaction would be. I imagine some people would agree, others disagree but that everyone would have a strong opinion on the topic.
Atheists generally know about evolution, evolutionary biology, evolutionarily stable strategies, and the like. And they generally don't believe in souls, as well as not believing in gods, because - basically, an Atheist is an Atheist because he or she rejects ideas which have no evidence to support them. Not all Atheists are this rigorous, but as a generalization most would not object to my categorization.
If a person does not believe in a soul (because there is no evidence of souls or gods or afterlifes), then the question becomes one of what makes a human more valuable than a non-human. And I'm not here to argue that in general, an average human is less valuable than an average non-human. My argument is that the differentiator between species is the most amazing and magical (in the secular sense of incredible and awesome and almost achingly beautiful) structure of the complex brain that many advanced animals possess. Such an organ is without contest or dispute the most complex physical structure in the known universe. And the Human animal has the most incredible brain of all. So - brains in general - incredible, and human brains - most incredible of all.
That said - without a soul, humans are firmly a part of the animal kingdom, not apart from that kingdom. The argument I would make is that there may be a graded spectrum of animal / brain complexity and that humans are on the top of that graded spectrum, but still are a part of it. And - for a second removing humans from that spectrum - most people would not have much to argue against the assertion that the more intellectually complex the non-human animal, the more immoral it would be to allow it to suffer or to cause it harm. For example - the AVERAGE HUMAN, if put in a situation where he or she had to select one creature to suffer/die - given the choice between a snail and a cat, our subject would likely select the snail rather than cause the cat to suffer. Similarly, if the choice was between one of our simian cousins, a chimpanzee for example, versus a mouse, the average person would likely select the mouse over the chimp to suffer/die. Even if they couldn't explain why, they would likely do so, because their brain is making a value judgement and that judgement comes down to (consciously or unconsciously) the complexity of the mind as judged by that human subject, in the given scenario.
Once that point is conceded, then the question comes up - is it moral and ethical to allow or cause the suffering in another being capable of suffering. We evolved evolutionarily stable strategies of behavior that instinctively tell us (except the broken sociopaths among us) that allowing other to suffer or causing others to suffer.. if we identify them as part of our tribe/inner circle.. is wrong/bad. And as our culture evolves and as we learn more we keep expanding that inner circle. We have now - at least all Atheists on Earth - have now expanded that circle to include ALL HUMANS. And most cultures, secular at their root regardless of the religiosity of the citizens in the culture, have codified into law protections to limit/prevent the suffering of its members. Yet, Theists and even many(some?) Atheists draw the line at Humans.
At this point, many omnivorous Atheists might say, "sure, humans are part of the animal kingdom, yet non-human animals slaughter and kill other non-human animals of different species", and this is true. They go on to argue, "as a human animal, and the apex predator on the planet, why wouldn't I kill and consume lesser creatures?" But here is where morality, ethics and our advanced brain once again allows a quantum leap ahead of simple evolution and baser primal instincts. Thanks to the incredible complexity of our human brains, we can abstractly model our universe with such fidelity we can even model the notion of self.. an amazing achievement for sure..., but we can also abstract our notion of self OUT of that model and look at a system holistically, rising above our baser primal urges.
When we do that, we come to see - or I should more precisely say - that the EVIDENCE LEADS US to the understanding that our previous notions of non-human animal intelligence were skewed by species bias, and we now understand that complex non-human animals with advanced brains not-too-different from our own have the capacity for emotional and physical suffering as nuanced and complex as any human can suffer. We now understand and there is an overwhelming body of evidence that shows that complex non-human animals like pigs, chickens, cows, dogs, cats, etc, can feel fear, anxiety, joy, love, devotion, anger, etc. And we know from more precise tests that their intelligence level, when tested with tests adjusted for their body form and environment is comparable to humans animals at ages 2 years to ages 6 years.
This means for Atheists who do not believe in a soul, who acknowledge that non-human and human animals are all part of the same animal kingdom, and who can only justify the value of humans over non-humans comparatively due to the more complex and nuanced brain organ, that to them, morally and ethically, eating a non-human pig, with an cognitive intelligence level of a 5 or 6 year old human child, is pretty much the same as the moral and ethical burden of eating a 5 or 6 year old human child. Not to even mention that from an emotional capacity, from a sentient capacity - i.e. the ability to FEEL emotions; to feel pain - is just about EQUAL between pigs and humans.
Similarly, given a retarded or brain damaged human, compared to a fully healthy pig, cow or chicken. There would be pigs and cows and chickens who are MORE cognitively capable than a retarded or brain damaged human animal. So - to kill the chicken and fight to spare a retarded human from suffering is a logical, intellectual, moral and ethical contradiction. This type of behavior can be explained by the neurological conditions known as speciesismm and carnism. But like the mental infection of belief in things for which there is no evidence, I'm sure most Atheists can be cured of those afflictions too.
Nevertheless, I am just flummoxed that they could be so infected to begin with, having recovered from the infection of religion.
It seems to me that to be an Atheist, and to be in possession of the evidence at hand regarding the minds and nervous systems of our non-human cousins, would require one to expand that 'inner circle' of morality to also include non-human animals. That once one acknowledges that the notion of a soul is a fantastic unfounded delusion, for an individual who is in general agreement that causing suffering or through inaction allowing another to suffer is morally and ethically bad, then that individual has to apply that moral and ethical principal to all beings capable of suffering in a comparable fashion, and also to err on the side of caution for the species for which the case is undecided.
I would argue that simple nervous system creatures, which we know to have brains incapable of the type of complex modeling of their environment that we would define as suffering, fear, anxiety, etc would be excluded from this moral and ethical inner circle. Taking a bivalve or snail for example - both have such simple nervous systems we can definitively say that while the living tissue may react to stimuli and damaging stimuli could be defined as pain, that the creature does not have the emotional or cognitive capacity to suffer. We could also say the same for lobsters and most simple sea creatures. For cows. pigs and chickens; for primates, dogs and cats, etc - the whole mammalian branch of the tree - we know definitively that they can suffer emotionally and physically in the same way humans can, and should therefore unequivocally be afforded the same rights to live lives free of suffering. For the creatures who's complexity is not yet fully understood or for which the evidence is inconclusive - like many fish in the sea, I would say it would be morally and ethically wise and responsible to err on the side of caution and to avoid causing harm or suffering if possible.
I cannot see anyone mounting an argument to counter that, without straying into the territory of having to justify why we as a society should protect the mentally infirm and inferior from harm or abuse. Without a soul and divine decree, all such arguments fall apart once speciesism and carnism are accounted for.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
No comments:
Post a Comment