Despite having begged the question of human exceptionalism at the start—by dismissing the sense that we are different as mere "Darwinian narcissism"—Mr. Peterson does develop a provocative case for the existence of a broadly shared evolutionary imperative that under pins human moral instincts. Among his better-chosen anecdotes are vivid illustrations of the social mechanisms by which primates and other group-dwellers mediate access to mates, food and other resources. Vampire bats, strikingly, remember which members of the group have shared a regurgitated blood meal in the past and know who to return the favor to. It is hard to argue with his propo sition that the powerful emotional saliency moral issues have for us, and their connection to serious matters of social organization and conflict—sex, territory, possessions, reciprocity, kinship—point to a hard-wired evolutionary adaptation of group-dwelling animals.
The problem with leaving it there, however, is that the moral world of humans, to even the most casually reflective observer, reaches far beyond such primal urges. Humans of the 21st century, after all, have exactly the same instinctual emotional urges that humans of the 18th century did. Yet because of language, argument and an ability to weigh abstract notions and hold ourselves accountable to moral ideals, the intervening centuries have seen a transformation in attitudes about slavery, democracy and the rights of women. These hardly amount to "this or that obscure issue."
How do you think that Mary Midgley would respond to Budiansky's complaint that Peterson underestimates the role that language and reason play in human morality?
I believe Midgley would say that Budiansky’s criticism is unfounded and then would logically back up her argument. In the process she would support Peterson’s idea that language and reason are not as important as first believed in human morality. Throughout her entire book, Animals and Why They Matter, Midgley continually breaks down common misperceptions about what constitutes the differential treatment of humans and animals.
ReplyDeleteMidgley would start off the argument by pointing out that not all humans can speak or reason. Is a mute person unable to have the full range of morality? What about a person is a psychological institution? Or a human child? Should any sympathetic or caring action performed by these people not be considered to be fully within human morality? The actions performed by people who cannot reason or speak still have a sense of morality that is not a mirage. Midgley would next bring up instances that show animals exuding morality. She might bring up instances of faithful dogs mourning at the foot of their dead owners not leaving their sides, or talk of instances where elephants show pride in their young or mourn their lose. After this, she would pick apart the entire idea that language and reason are pertinent at all to morality. Yes, language and reason allows humans to grasp abstract ideas that animals are unable to grasp, but its this intelligence that has led to the creation of many negative creations as well such as slavery. Is it really seen as “more advanced morality” to be able to know that slavery is wrong and should be abolished? Animals don’t understand the concept as slavery, and if humans were more moral they wouldn’t have devised the system in the first place. This increased intelligence allows humans to have more diverse thoughts, but morality is still the same; what is right and wrong.
The extent of morality does not depend of reason or language, just the basics of right and wrong. Animals cannot grasp abstract ideas, but they have a sense of family, love, and loyalty. That is their morality. The ability to grasp complex ideas does not change morality for humans. Morality still remains what is right or wrong for any animal (humans too). I imagine Midgley would respond in some way similar to this with the same basic message, albeit much more difficult to understand.
Throughout the book, Midgley thinks it is important to investigate the differences and similarities between humans and animals to determine what is really true or important. Midgley talks about the species barrier and whether or not this can be crossed. In relation to Budiansky's complaint about the importance of language and reason in human morality, I think that Midgley would agree that those are important, but not the defining characteristics.
ReplyDeleteMany people consider that emotions and the reason to decide how to feel, are strictly human qualities; however, Midgley disagrees. She states that although we are unable to get inside the head of an animal and understand what they are thinking, we can determine their feelings through their actions, especially when their response is similar to a humans'. The species barrier can be crossed when it comes to emotions because we are able to determine the sadness a mother feels when her child is taken away not only in the human world, but non-human as well. Thus, the animal mother is able to understand the situation of loss and feel sad about that. It is evident that animal emotions are similar because we are able to understand these feelings and relate to them; this sharing of emotions allows us to connect. Evolution attributes to the connecting qualities and cognitive abilities between the two species; however, language and reason sill prevent the elimination of the species barrier completely.
Language itself can not determine the difference between animals and human morality because there are many humans who are unable to speak, and there and many animals who speak in their own way. Midgley presents the example of babies who have not yet learned language; this does not prevent them from being human or the mute from being capable of moral thinking. Although language is important to connect to one's species, I don't think Midgley would say that language plays as large of a part in the morality of humans.
It is the ability to think abstractly and determine what is right and what is wrong that differentiates the moral authority that humans have over animals. Although it seems that animals make moral decisions, such as heroically saving a child, it is not a clear sign of moral choice. As the example of the gorilla in the zoo portrays, it is often the case that the animals is doing what it was taught or what it has observed. An animal may carry out these actions, but the animal itself does not understand the meaning behind them.
Although Midgley would feel that Budiansky's criticism is not completely reasonable based on language and reason, I think she will agree that our difference is more than "Darwin Narcissism". It is our ability to choose and understand what we know is right and wrong that play the biggest role in human morality.
Throughout Animals and Why They Matter, Midgley brings up many points that animals have feelings and she also talks about the "Speices Barrier" with respect that some humans don't treat animals as "equals". When asked how Midgely would respond to Budiansky's complaint about Peterson underestimates the role that language and reason play in human morality, I feel that Midgley would agree with Petterson and disagree with Budiansky. Both Midgley and Petterson have pointed out that in the beginning human morality was not as important when comparing animals and humans.
ReplyDeleteMidgley likes to see what is important and then to see if what is true. In Animals and Why They Matter she points out that if we try to understand animals, and actually put in time and effort we will eventually understand them. Midgley believes the we can understand one's feelings through action, and animals are no different. Animals can sense when humans are upset and we can sense when they are upset as well. I know from experience my dog can tell when I'm upset and vice versa. Just like how the gorilla saved the child. This does not nescessarily mean that the gorilla was trying to be a heroic figure, but as we talked about in class this is what the gorilla could be used to and just wanted to be "protective". Language does not seem to be a huge matter in in the importance of human morality. Midgley looks at all aspects of humans and animals. Although, we can't speak the same language of animals does not mean we cannot understand them. This goes for the same with people who are blind or deaf. We all have a different type of language whether it be using sign language or brail, we can still understand each others emotions through action. This is why language isn't a key factor in human morality.
Lastly, we as humans know what is right and what is wrong. I can agree with what Mike said above about animals not being able to grasp the abstract ideas. But although they may not be able to grip these ideas, does not mean they do not know right from wrong. Teaching a dog not to bite, is just like teaching a child not to hit someone. And like Midgley says you just have to put in time and you will understand them, I think that if you put in time they will also understand what we are trying to teach them the difference between right and wrong. We have the option of what is right and wrong and how we treat each others and animals which goes back to the "golden rule", and Midgley can conclude that language does not have a huge role in human morality.
Mary Midgley states, "...those who try to understand animals, and give time and attention to the matter, often come to understand them quite well" (133). I feel that the fact that Midgley closes with this statement sums up everything she has discussed throughout the book. Essentially, she works to disprove the ideas of a barrier between animals and humans and how ultimately reason and language have shaped the moral aspects of life.
ReplyDeleteUpon reflection of the article by Budiansky, he complains that Peterson underestimates the role language and reason play in human morality. I especially like how Mike put it when making reference to a mute person or even a child. After reading Midgley's work, it seems that she would not be quick to classify people in terms of how they reason or speak in relation to their morality. Who has the right above anyone else to say that someone else's way or reasoning is morally wrong? In addition, who is to put a definite classification on "reason"? It seems that Midgley would focus more on the fact that, although language and reason have played a part in morality in the past, morality is something that guides people in their actions. Furthermore, as Budiansky described Peterson's thoughts on morality and language he states, ..."surely evolved long before the separate evolution of our own species" (pg. 2). Thus, he brings up evolution in the sense that perhaps it relates humans to animals and the fact that it has evolved over time.
This calls into question the species barrier which tends to draw the line between humans and animals. Midgley disagrees with this, however, she still says that we can not generalize and say that all animals are the same. Going back to the opening statement, while we may not be able to fully understand animals, we can learn and sense things from them - just like we do to other humans. Just as moral rules are not universally binding, language, reason, and an overall way of thinking are not universally binding. I think Midgley would support the idea that humans and animals have separte ways of thinking and reasoning, however, we are all still related. Therefore, morality cannot just be based on language and reason. There are numerous variations of language, i.e. sign language, body language, verbal language etc. Just because animals don't verbally speak does not mean they do not communicate.
The fact that Midgley says animals have emotions leads me to my next point. Animals can sense things and also show emotion as suggested by De Waal. "Sympathy is anything but automatic...it is common not only in humans but also in other animals, such as apes, dogs, elephants, and birds" (25). This relates to the gorilla who saved the boy, as discussed in Budiansky's article. I feel that Midgley would believe that the gorilla sensed the boy was in need and that the moral thing to do was help the boy. Was it not an act of morality that the boy was saved? The gorilla could have gone up to the boy and hurt him just as easily.
In closing, I feel that Midgley would agrue that we have to consider all aspects to animals and humans and how they think, reason, show emotion, and communicate in terms of moral behavior. There is more than meets the eye, and to fully inderstand, one must take multiple aspects into account - not just focus on certain ideas like Budiansky and Peterson did.
Throughout her book "Animals and Why They Matter," Mary Midgley frequently focuses in on the opinions of skeptics, such as Rene Descartes, in order to dismantle their views. I believe Midgley would do the same with the claims of Stephen Budiansky.
ReplyDeleteTo start with, Midgley would most likely ask what is meant by language and reason. As she stated in her book, many animals do communicate with one another. Our lack of ability to understand what is being communicated between them is not a legitimate reason for denying that they use language. We humans tend to be very egocentric, and Midlgey would point out that just because something is different than our own experience, that doesn't negate its existence.
I believe Midgley would then be quick to point out that neither babies nor those with certain disabilities can utilize language or reason – yet they are still (generally) treated with respect and are deemed deserving of certain human rights. Why then, are we as humans so quick to dismiss animals while holding up young and disabled humans as most deserving of our protection and respect? Budiansky states that our reason and ability to use language are what enable us to have a moral conscience and set us apart from other animals. But if this is true, are babies not considered to be human? Following this line of thinking, it should be ok to perform experiments on babies, kill them for sport, and eat them – since they cannot defend themselves with reason or language.
In regards to the claim about animals lacking morals, I think Midgley’s point of view would be more difficult to pinpoint. She seems to be against completely anthropomorphizing animals in order to make them seem incredibly human-like – which means she probably would not agree with Peterson’s view that animals have a very moral social life. At the same time, I do not think she would agree with Budiansky’s view of animals lacking anything and everything that makes humans unique. I think she would take a sort of middle ground and would think that animals likely have their own set of standards and morals that they adhere to – and once again, just because they are different does not mean they are beneath us. This is one of the main points I believe Midgley would argue if presented with this excerpt.
Throughout Midgley's book "Animals and Why They Matter" there is this comparison between animals and humans and in one point she mentions this idea of there being a "species barrier" between humans and the wildlife that surrounds them. I believe that Midgley would not relate a human's morality to their reasons and language. The relationship between humans and animals is what I believe to be closer then what Peterson believes. There are times when Peterson believes that there are certain things that animals do in which we may think that it makes them have human characteristics. An example would be the case of Bindi the ape who saved the boy that fell into their enclosure. His claim is that the ape was trained to carry a doll and then give it to her trainer and because of this he sees that there is no good evidence to show that animals have any human characteristics. I think Midgley would disagree with him in that our morality is based on the reason and language. Even though animals cannot talk I don't think Midgley would say that their morality would be based on this.
ReplyDeleteEven though animals cannot talk they do share human characteristics that we have because they are similar to us in what is going on in their life. Even if Bindi was not trained to carry a doll to her trainer there could be some thought that the ape would have some motherly instincts to protect her child and that this child that fell into the enclosure can be similar to her own. Midgley I don't think would agree with them because it is possible to see that animals do share characteristics with humans bacuse even though there is no language with animals, in that they cannot speak to humans, there are similarities to the way that they like that are close to how humans act.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThroughout Animals and Why They Matter, Midgley brings up many points that animals have feelings just like humans. When asked the question how do I think that Midgley would respond to Budiansky's complaint that Peterson underestimates the role that language and reason play in human morality? I believe that Midgley would agree with Petterson and disagree with Budiansky.
ReplyDeleteMidgley discusses the species barrier and whether or not it can be crossed. Budiansky's complaint about the importance of language and reason in human morality relates to the species barrier, I believe that Midgley would agree that those are important, but not the defining characteristics of human morality. Language itself can’t determine the difference between animals and human morality because there are many individuals who are incapable of talking, and there and many animals who speak in their own way by barking for instance. Also some individuals believe that only humans show emotion, and that it is only a human quality. However Midgley would disagree and say that animals show emotion also. An example of an animal showing emotion would be when a dog’s owner is sick the dog will normally lay close to them to try and provide the owner with comfort, just as a human would do for one. Therefore she believes that the species barrier can be crossed.
Lastly I believe that the level of morality does not depend solely on reason or language, but the essentials of what is right and wrong.
I believe that animals just like humans can differentiate what is right or wrong depending on what they are taught. Just like a dog is taught that biting people is bad, children are usually taught that hitting others is bad and that they should not do that. Midgley would agree that animals can learn what is right or wrong just like humans have the capability. Therefore I believe Midgley would conclude that language and reason is not completely based on human morality but that human morality is more than "Darwin Narcissism".
Throughout Animals and Why They Matter, Midgley continually emphasizes that humans and animals are similar and that there are many misconceptions that lead everyone to think otherwise. Midgley says that there a similarities between humans and animals, but they are on different levels. This idea relates to the species barrier that distinguishes human beings from other species. Midgley looks carefully at the species barrier in this book to see what is true between humans and the nonhumans.
ReplyDeleteIn realtion to the article, I beleive that Midgley would respond to Budiansky's complaint that Peterson underestimates the role that language and reason play in human morality by saying that those two aspects are very importnant to morality, but those are not the only important factors. Midlgey, beings very anthroporphism would say that just because we do not understand the language communicated by animals does not mean that there is no means of communication among them. Even though we, as humans, cannot understand their language does not mean that it is non-existant. Take for example a human who only knows the english langauge. This person may come across a moment where they are surrounded by foreigners and cannot understand anything that they are trying to say to him. Just because this language is different from what he is accustomed to does not mean this group of people should be denied morality.
Reason is another aspect that is a part of morality, but it definately does not define it solely. Everyone can reason in different ways and just because someone else's reason doesn't match yours does not mean that it should be denied.
Midgley understands that there are differences between humans and nonhumans, but there are also some major similarites that need ot be considered. Animals have their own way of communicating, as do we. Just becaue we do not understand their method, does not mean that they should be discredited because we even have different methods of communication that we use on a day to day basis. I believe that Midgley would say that language and reason are different among humans and animals, but these two aspects do not define morality alone. I believe Midgley would say that there are more characteristics that need to be considered along with language and reason.
Throughout the book, Midgley tends to focus on the relationship between humans and animals especially in the Mixed Community section. Midgley feels that there is no species barrier between animals and humans because both experience feelings and have a sense of language and reason. Even though she knows animals have a sense of reason and language, I think she wouldn't allow those to be the only two reasons that differentiate the idea of morality. So in this case with the article I feel as if Midgley would agree more Peterson and disagree with Budiansky. I don't know if Midgley would fully agree with Peterson because I feel that she would want to use more characteristics to define the idea of moral behavior. For example I don't think she would use the idea of just reason and language to say animals have a moral behavior, I think she would want to take into consideration the idea of their emotions, and their behavior.
ReplyDeleteFor this reason, I think that Midgley would take into consideration the idea of the species barrier since she agrees that there is no barrier for the most part between animals and humans. We all have reason, language, emotions, and certain actions that guide our moral behavior. Even though animals and humans who don't have certain capabilities have different ways they express these characteristics, which is why I think Midgley would say language and reason aren't the only two defining characteristics that make up morality. For example humans are able to understand animals even though we do not share the same language as one another. I feel as though animals show their emotions not only between other animals but also humans as well. Animals, like the gorilla saving the boy have certain intentions which guide them to the actions they make. This leads to the idea of animals experiencing reason and what they think is right and wrong. Humans aren't the only ones who experience right and wrong behaviors. We may have a different attitude toward why we do something but animals too feel a sense of moral behavior when they experience reason. The idea of the gorilla saving the boy also sides with animals having emotion. Obviously the gorilla was there to help the boy no matter what his reason was behind the action.
In conclusion, I feel Midgley would say that our moral behavior is different than animals but that doesn't allow for a speices barrier to develop. Both species have their own way of dealing with morals and our behavior that lead to morality. Even though humans know the difference between right and wrong and animals necessarily do not, does not lead to the fact that language and reason are soley part of human morality. Animals have a sense of moral behavior because they too can experience language and reason. Even though Midlgey would go into further detail I believe that she would agree that language and reason do not just have a part in human morality but also in animal morality because they too feel a sense of language and reason along with other aspects that make them have a sense of moral behavior.
I believe that Midgley would completely disagree with Budiansky's argument and that she would more take the side of Peterson. I think this because Midgley talks about, throughout this entire book, the fact that we can't use language and reason as a reasonable answer to whether animals have moral rights or not. She says this, and continually bring up the point that, because there are some humans who may not even be able to reason logically, or may not have language.
ReplyDeleteThe best example of this would be infants. They have absolutely no reason, and obviously can't speak, however a mother would save the infant's life before saving their dog's. This shows that the mother has more moral obligations to the baby (who can't speak or reason, keep in mind) than she does to a dog (who technically has some sort of reason because they know ripping apart the furniture will get them punished).
Midgley goes against the fact that language and reason are two important things that determine moral rights, however there are some people who still believe that animals can reason, and do have some sort of language, although it is not similar to us. Because of this, Midgley just takes reason and language completely out of the equation and says you can't judge moral rights by these two things, which is why she would disagree with Budiansky when he says that Peter underestimates the role that language and reason play, because she thinks they have no role, therefore there is nothing to underestimate.