Hi Gregg,

I’m responding here mainly to the blog post. In Australia, if you run over a cat you don’t have to report it. If you run over a dog, you have to report it, but many people don’t and it isn’t a big deal. If you run over a child, you need to stop, report it, render first aid if trained, etc.etc. So, it’s clear that just from a perspective of reducing the hassle in your life you should run over the cat/dog/snaiI etc. rather than run over a child. So you can make a purely pragmatic choice — last time  I ran over the child instead of the dog it was a major hassle — so this time I’m squishing the dog! (Of course there’s the whole issue of why we’re “needing” to run things over in the first place, but that’s another story).

Now, as self-identifying humans we shouldn’t be surprised that we put our species ahead of others. (lt is interesting to ask why this is not surprising, and there seem to be basic evolutionary pressures that can explain it). So, the bias that creates the difference in law (etc.) that I describe in the snail/cat/dog/child squishing scenario runs quite deep. If I understand what you mean by dignity, integrity and well-being — the claim that we should value a human life over an animal life is a normative claim that can form the bedrock of other decisions. The 1:1 ratio here simplifies things, if we consider other “trolley problem” type formulations it gets trickier. If by not swerving I know I will destroy the last breeding population of Northern quolls, do I kill the child or drive the quolls to extinction? 

 I don’t think that humans are the only animals that have culture. We may be the only ones that Justify. But for me, the mapping of the culture level exclusively onto the human seems likes an error. Or rather the error seems to be to say that Culture=Justifying. It is of course possible to strip out the meaning of Culture in a way that allows this, but that makes the argument rather circular. I would prefer to say that there are strong evolutionary reasons why members of one species preference members of the same species, and that that principle is strongly built into human culture (and justification systems). Coming back to the bedrock normative principles: Is it dignified to slaughter other animals? Is there is integrity in saying that I care for my cattle and yet send them to be slaughtered? Do I really need to have other animals killed for my well-being?

Cheers,

Tjarlz
> On 4 Apr 2022, at 9:06 pm, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>  This is a great question and one that I have grappled with some. Let me share my analysis. First, as you suggest and this blog elaborates <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201301_human-2Dexceptionalism&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=QO6_kup60BM4_Td-t2TQ2eQ1IuV7GzcaE0R0YuRtAgM&s=7AbNi_oPNhjcRGA5gMfKifx5ud7cjntSf3TS0gBKOxM&e= >, the UTOK/ToK frame does afford justification for seeing human persons as exceptional and warranting special treatment relative to animals.

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1