Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!bbncca!rrizzo
From: rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: animal vs human rights, morality
Message-ID: <1313@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 8-Feb-85 10:33:34 EST
Article-I.D.: bbncca.1313
Posted: Fri Feb  8 10:33:34 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Feb-85 08:15:51 EST
References: <233@usl.UUCP>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 49



But most writing on the human/animal difference assume an intelligence
difference in kind, not merely in degree, if they allow intelligence in
animals at all.  Saying we are obliged to treat less intelligent humans
as less (than) human rests on an equivocation:  the word intelligence is
used to mean alternately a capacity for thought & reason etc., OR the
greater use or development of such a capacity.  Attempts to make intelli-
gence the basis of as strong a moral distinction as that usually drawn
between humans & animals (vs. say a desire for eugenics or a meritocracy)
have always concerned possession of the capacity, not its exercise, as
far as I know.

To emphasize this point:  Alexander Marshak has studied paleolithic
(human) artifacts to extract by inference etc. as much information
about symbolic and cognitive abilities of early humankind as possible.
His conclusion:  mind as human cognitive & symbol-making capacity (& 
even in terms of specific skills) has remained constant for the last
40,000 years.

We can't know even by report what occurs in animal minds (if they have
"minds") for they lack language.  Every attempt to demonstrate the exis-
tence of an "animal language" has been exploded in precisely the same
way:  dolphins, chimpanzees, whales, or ants, for that matter, can learn
and use a system of "signals" (signs representing objects characterized
by proximity in time or space to those objects) but have never displayed 
the ability to manipulate a system of "symbols" ("abstract" signs, or
representations of objects removed in time & space from those objects)
which is what (human) language is par excellence.  However, this fact
does not seem to deter the "animal language" enthusiasts.  

Human intelligence has been repeatedly & intimately linked to the nature
and powers of development of language by many scientists & philosophers.

Besides "animal language", the only other source for belief in animal
intelligence is the detailed observations of & thinking about animal 
behavior by ethologists, who feel strongly moved to impute "drives" &
"emotions" to many species.  I'm inclined to favor this attribution
since it's based on careful & considered observation.  But it points
up the gap between thought & feeling on which the idea of "intelligence"
is based.

It certainly is interesting to speculate about human/animal differences
(or their lack), but given the contrary evidence that exists, it seems
a fruitless enterprise.


						Regards,
						Ron Rizzo