If Humans Were Just Animals, We Would Not Help Animals
Whether we like it or not, the gulf fixed between humans and other animals is what makes it possible for us to reject cruelty to animalsUniversity of Antwerp philosopher Hugh Desmond thinks that insisting that humans are just animals is not going to help us cope with the environment issues we create. Protozoan life, as he tells it at Aeon, reorganized Earth starting roughly 2 billion years ago and now life, in the form of humans, is reorganizing it once again: “However, unlike our unicellular ancestors, we are ethically conflicted about our looming fate.”
Image Credit: 2ragon - Really? If ethics matter to us, protozoa are not the right comparison. That, unfortunately, warps everything that follows.
Desmond is one of the editors of Human Success: Evolutionary Origins and Ethical Implications (Oxford 2023) and evolution thinking forms the blind spot he and many others display about human nature:
Today, it is impossible to believe we are privileged creatures literally created by divine powers or spiritual forces. We know too much. As the theory of evolution tells us: go back far enough, and our ancestors were not ‘human’ but merely human-like. In fact, many of the traits we once thought made us unique have shown up in other species. Other animals can problem-solve creatively, communicate using symbolic language, become indignant when treated unfairly, and mourn the dead. These evolutionary discoveries have profound implications for the stories our species tells itself.
Hugh Desmond, “Dominion: To take care of the Earth, humans must recognise that we are both a part of the animal kingdom and its dominant power,” Aeon, May 27, 2024
Sorry, but no. First, the human mind has no history. Go far enough back, and you find human ancestors trying to create spheres out of stone.
Second, animals do clever, one-off, species-specific things. But none gets a huge team together to build a James Webb Space Telescope — or grasps why humans do. There is a gulf fixed between us and them — and claims about “evolution” don’t bridge it.
If intellect isn’t an accidental free lunch, neither is ethics. Desmond writes,
Human beings are a part of the animal kingdom, not apart from it. The separation of ‘us’ from ‘them’ creates a false picture and is responsible for much suffering. It is part of the in-group/out-group mentality that leads to human oppression of the weak by the strong as in ethnic, religious, political, and social conflicts. Let us open our hearts to two-way relationships with other animals, each giving and receiving. This brings pure and uncomplicated joy.
Desmond, “Its Dominant Power
Not so fast. We are part of the animal kingdom but also part of another one. Strong animals are blameless when they oppress weak ones in the order of nature. Injustices are only evils among humans because we are part of that other kingdom. All relations with animals are governed in part by that fact, whether they bring joy or not.
How evolution narratives can handicap our thinking
At any rate, Desmond doesn’t think that animal rights activism has helped us care for other species: “The truth is that the animal liberation movement has not moved the needle much, if at all.” But if we are just the dominant animal, why should we care? Why do we even know that there is an ethical needle? Nature did not tell us that.
He then offers readers the familiar rocks-to-rockets human evo history, in which one point is certainly worth addressing: “Soon, the inventiveness of hominins began to snowball. The more our ancestors learned about how the world worked, and the better tools and know-how they developed, the more they flourished.”
Image Credit: dasom - Well, not quite. It wasn’t human inventiveness that snowballed; it was the cumulative effect of tools and knowledge. Early man’s achievements were gravely handicapped by lack of metals. Early modern man’s achievements were gravely handicapped by lack of science. No matter how inventive we are mentally, to craft things — rose windows, hip replacements, computers — we need a variety of specific tools and branches of knowledge.
Desmond lands cheerfully on the side of common sense when it comes to practical issues like animal welfare: “In fact, we cannot avoid being paternalistic towards animals. If a tiger at the zoo needs a more varied environment, it’s never the tiger who will take the matter in hand and make the requisite purchases to ensure a high-quality habitat. The zookeeper will decide for the tiger.” Of course, because the zookeeper has the gift of reason and the tiger doesn’t.
Desmond’s problem is that he does not want to admit the existence of the gulf or its probable origin in an unseen world. He contributes to the “human evolution” narrative (witness the book he co-edited) but it serves him poorly. No surprise there; it serves everyone poorly.
Why the human evolution narrative handicaps our thinking
The emphasis on humans as mere animals will always be at odds with the demand that we behave like something more — without any rational account provided as to how or why we should be able to do so.
Instead, how about we start here: Humans, however we originated, have one foot in the animal world and one foot in the unseen world, the world of reason and moral choice. We didn’t ask for that and we can’t escape it. We can only live as if it is true or face the grim consequences of not doing so — because it is true. All religion and philosophy testify to our dual nature by their very existence. Concerns about the environment and animal welfare must find their place in that reality.
Note: Michael Egnor and I will discuss these aspects of human nature in more detail in our upcoming book, The Human Soul: A neurosurgeon’s defense of immortality (2025).
