I’ve been reading Steven Pinker’s “Blank Slate”. It is certainly very interesting although not quite what I expected. I thought I would be overwhelmed by new evidence based on clever scientific studies that used all the latest and best technology that money can buy. Maybe it’ll get there, I’m only half way, but it’s still interesting. Back in the 70’s Pinker had a front row seat to the controversy surrounding sociobiology (now know as evolutionary psychology). People were (and are) outraged that certain aspects of human behavior may be naturally evolved, this includes things like male violence, some gender roles and things like homosexuality. One fear is that that if men are naturally violent, that somehow legitimizes it. The other fear is that if things like intelligence are innate and if women or blacks are less intelligent, ten years of discrimination against those groups will have been justified. I’ve never heard a good reason for this jump but I can see how it may seem intuitive to some people (racists for example). It is nonsense though; if women -on average- make bad engineers, then they will naturally be underrepresented in that profession without the help of barriers (besides, if merit is the basis for discrimination then you can’t block talented people without violating your own argument).
Anyway, the point Pinker was making is that the human demand for equality does not depend on us being equal in some measurable sense because this would be vulnerable to refutation by the next scientific study. Equality for humans means equal consideration of interests not some factual equality among people. People know this of course, if a racist has a retarded child he does not conclude that it has no rights. Pinker doesn’t recognize the implications for animals; he even cites Singer once and mentions the quaint idea that some people think animals have interests. It seems he’d rather think up new experiments that involve stitching up ferret’s eyes or cutting them out completely. If human rights don’t depend on ability then why is it constantly invoked as a reason to ignore the interests of animals?
Anyway, the point Pinker was making is that the human demand for equality does not depend on us being equal in some measurable sense because this would be vulnerable to refutation by the next scientific study. Equality for humans means equal consideration of interests not some factual equality among people. People know this of course, if a racist has a retarded child he does not conclude that it has no rights. Pinker doesn’t recognize the implications for animals; he even cites Singer once and mentions the quaint idea that some people think animals have interests. It seems he’d rather think up new experiments that involve stitching up ferret’s eyes or cutting them out completely. If human rights don’t depend on ability then why is it constantly invoked as a reason to ignore the interests of animals?
1 comment:
Maybe people don't really believe in equality in any way, not in actual biophysical characteristics nor i.t.o. equal consideration of interests?
Maybe Steven Pinker, does believe he is superior, and hence that his interests are more important.
That's why people, especially those that have been previously opressed and discriminated against, are afraid of these studies.
But those people who would use these studies to justify discrimination in our society, must already biased and prejudiced.
Unfortunately, most people are biased against animals. It will take a huge revolution for them to see animals differently.
Post a Comment