goodthief, you suggest that value/respect is objective, but i don't know how to think of it that way. certainly, my attitude to people, and my attitude to my attitude is subjective: that's somehow the point!

But perhaps it's a matter of personal perspective versus global perspective. csteele is obviously right: we are closer - in various ways - to some people than others, and we tend to value those people more. but there is a global view: we know that all people value others from their world, and there's no intrinsic superiority to our valuation of people. that's somehow the objective framework: there's a common basis to the way we value, and thus we can value others' evaluation. (people, please please resist inserting your god as an answer here: it'll just cause grumpiness).

two more quick points. first, i think there's something ambiguous in your use of the word "respect". i simply do not respect dick cheney as much as nelson mandella, to take one example. but there is some kind of acknowledgement-respect that, no matter what, cheney retains his humanity. in that sense, i can "respect" cheney as a human being (albeit i find it tough when he refuses to behave likewise, and argues for the torture of human beings).

the second point is that i share csteele's nervousness with drawing a line between humans and other living creatures. though i appreciate your characterization of "stewardship", and agree to some extent, i don't think it suffices. i'm just not sure i can agree that non-humans are of lower value. when i hear of young punks torturing a helpless animal, i know who i value more. but i'm not a vegetarian, i swat flies. i'll admit i'm confused.

Oh no, it’s unravelling already – that was quick.

bushbasher, I promised not to bring God into this discussion.

Perhaps we won't agree about the objective and subjective issue. Put it this way, if I were to say “People are not equal, so there’s no need to treat them as if they are”, you’d disagree, wouldn’t you? I mean, disagree not simply because you feel differently about it but because you regard my view as mistaken.

I don’t think I’m looking for anything better than what you’re offering Dick Cheney.

Other species. I agree it’s extremely dangerous (for the other species) to speak of “less valuable” because the more brutish humans see that as a green light for all sorts of abuse. Given what we [might] believe to be the extraordinary value of humans, simply to be less valuable doesn’t mean other species are of low value. I’m quite happy to regard everything living as valuable – everything that exists, if you like – and to regard many species as being of very high value. I regard humans as more valuable, that’s all. So, when I speak of social justice and equality, I’m definitely talking about humans only – because of the undefined “something” they/we possess. I think this is what humanism stands for.

I’m not trying to persuade you to subscribe to this starting point. Just inviting. It’s your call.

I think this discussion has just about dried up. So, I just hope that those of us who “played” will recall that we occupied this common ground, if only briefly.

Pax,

I dunno goodthief, I think there's a fundamental attitude adjustment that humanity needs to make, and part of that is this ideal of putting ourselves on a pedestal as you suggest - even if we acknowledge animals are valuable.

Not wanting to go all 'Gaia-greenie' on the folks here, but ask any biologist about ecosystems and how every species has an ecological niche.

I dunno if we can really regard people as anything more than the animals around us - of course there is inevitably a built in favouritism to our species and I'd never condone putting an animal's life above a human - but we really do need an attitude adjustment.

Firstly, we can talk of intelligence and human achievement all we want, but when we get back to the brass tacks of our ecosystem, we really aren't anything special save for perhaps two survival attributes - intelligence and opposable thumbs.

I think people view humans and animals as separate, or when they're being generous, rungs on a ladder with us at the top.

I do muse as to why we should be better though.

Is it intelligence? Then why do we react with abhorrence when one person says they're 'better' than someone, just because they're smarter.

Is a dolphin then 'better' than a goat?

Is our species superior because of morality? Ask the species we eat and the systems we destroy.

Is it because we can love?
Have you seen a horse nurture its foal? What about a dog that cares for its puppies, or the waterbirds that mate for life.

I'm no vegan - I accept I'm an omnivore and a creature of habit and I don't judge on this basis, any more than I judge the lions for eating gazelles, though I know I have a choice and they don't.

The thing is, we're just one part of a system, and I don't think we're the special beings we're programmed to believe we are.

Accepting this leads to a more humane approach to our environment, and the creatures around us.

hi goodthief,

i agree the thread seems dried up. so, i'll make this my last post here, and just make a couple quick comments.

i think it was an interesting exercise trying to find that common ground. in fact, for me, i never doubted i had that common ground with you (minus one confusing post). we may argue around the edges, or definitions, and stray into discussing peter singer et al, but i don't think that changes the main point.

but, i think it's also worth reflecting upon who was willing to play, and who was not. and i think it's worth considering, what people regard as fundamental.

see you on a future thread, no doubt.

Sorry good thief, I’m not sure why I struggled to get over the first hurdle in this consensus exercise of yours and clarity has never been my strong point.

I hope it is not just a case of semantics but I didn’t agree that it has “Nothing to do with bonds and feelings.”. I think notions of respect and value had everything to do with bonds and feelings, which ultimately reflects who we are and exactly what needs to be celebrated about us.

My head is sometimes with the Houyhhnms but I have to face the fact that my heart will probably always be with the Yahoos.

However I liked and accepted bushbasher’s notion of a global view of value so went with a tentative yes to your question especially since you had acknowledged your ’something’ is somewhat artificial.

Don’t get me wrong, I find the human race utterly beguiling and bewitching. I feel a deep empathy with/for most of it and if it wasn’t such a messy word I might even call it love. But I think that would be the same for the majority of us around the world, regardless of creed. That may be where your “compelling” comes from but it is probably not reasonable nor rational.

I just see us as a bunch of entities parachuted into this reality with, almost cruelly it would seem, just enough conceptual power to really screw with us but with never enough to give us any chance of really figuring it all out. The fact that so many seem to manage without jumping lemming like off the nearest cliff does humble me.

So when you asked me to ignore “the many differences we are conscious of“, and ignore “the very impressive flaws we all possess in our disposition and our output” I couldn’t since these are the very qualities that endear the human race to me and precisely why I ‘value’ them.

Damn, I think I’m coming down with a God complex. Oops, sorry bushbasher.

Thanks for the effort regardless.

bushbasher, See you next time.

TRTL, I can only respond by abandoning the above exercise of sporting with humanist common ground, which I’m reluctant to do. If I didn’t believe in God, and in certain things that flow from that, I’d probably agree with pretty much everything in your post. If I were an atheist evolutionist, where what you see is what you get, I would have great difficulty attributing to humans the kind of common value I’ve been talking about. As I am a Christian, you probably know where my ideas of human value come from – and it’s not based on what humans do or can do. So, I’m not surprised that Boaz was happy to subscribe. To keep faith with the recent exercise, I won’t trouble you further with the rationale.

For atheists, I can only surmise that the certain “something” we’ve been toying with is something we intuit –something that science will not recognise until it’s more evident. Yet, CJ Morgan, one of the more determined empiricists on OLO, was happy to subscribe to the humanist starting point too.

If it helps, I don’t believe that human superiority means they are somehow above the world altogether or separate from it. Further, I had suggested that high human value be “deemed”, recognising that there was an artificiality about the exercise. Anyhow, it was just an experiment.

csteele, Yes, artificial will have to do, as it was just meant to be a starting point. As for rational, it depends on your more fundamental beliefs. Certainly, the idea flows without effort from my fundamental beliefs, but I’m aware that those beliefs are contentious. And we’ll have to agree to differ about the significance of bonds and feelings – to this discussion, I mean – and about the significance of human flaws (I meant things like greed and violence).

In fact, these qualifications are so substantial that you might not be a Yes, after all? Which is fine, of course: I’m not saying everyone has to be a humanist, but just checking to see who might be.

Pax,