מחקרים מעוררים מחדש את הוויכוח על ההבדל בין בני האדם לחיות. יש הסבורים, כי אין להתעלם מההשלכות המוסריות של הממצאים.
תוכי הג'אקו האפריקאים מדברים אנגלית וניחנים בחוש הומור. לקופי הקפוצ'ין חוש עסקי מפותח, שסייע להם ללמוד במהירות כיצד לסחור עם בני אדם תמורת מזון. אחרי ששנים כל בעל כלב היה מוכן להישבע שהוא מנהל שיחות נפש עם כלבו, והכלב מבין אותו, חוקרים גרמנים מצאו אישוש מדעי לכך. בעלי חיים שונים - מקופים ועד ציפורים - משתמשים בכלים ואף יוצרים אותם בעצמם. יתרה מכך, באזורים שונים בעולם, הם משתמשים בשיטות שונות להשגת מזון, מה שמצביע על כך שיש להם תרבות והם אינם רק תוצר המוכתב מהביולוגיה שלהם.
יותר ויותר חוקרים מאמצים את הדעה, ולפיה לבעלי חיים יש תרבות, יכולת למידה חברתית ומודעות עצמית. לאחר שבמשך עשורים רבים נטו מדענים להכחיש את קיומה של תודעה אצל חיות, בשנים האחרונות יותר ויותר חוקרים מוצאים תימוכין לקיומה, וחלקם אף מתחילים לדבר על "נפש".
השימפנזים מצייתים לנורמות תרבותיות נלמדות
יש פרות שמעדיפות נמרים (צילום: רויטרס)שלשום התפרסם מחקר - שזכה לסיקור נרחב בעיתונות, כולל ב"הארץ" - שנעשה על ידי שניים מהחוקרים המובילים בתחום, הד"ר אנדרו ויטן, מאוניברסיטת סיינט אנדריוס בסקוטלנד, והד"ר פרנס דה-ואל מאוניברסיטת אמורי בארה"ב. בתצפיות על שימפנזים שקיים הצוות, התברר שהשימפנזים (כמו האדם) מצייתים לנורמות תרבותיות שנלמדות ונשמרות בצורה חברתית - אולי עדות לכך שלשימפנזים אכן יש תרבות.
לדברי תמר פרדמן, חוקרת בפארק הקופים ביער בן שמן, "בהתחלה אמרו ששימוש בכלים הוא המפריד בין האדם והחי, אבל אז התברר שיש את זה גם בבעלי חיים. אחר כך אמרו שאבן ההפרדה היא ביכולת ליצור כלים, אחרי זה אמרו שמה שמייחד את האדם זו העברה תרבותית, ועכשיו רואים שגם לקופי אדם יש תרבויות שונות". לדבריה, העדויות מלמדות על כך שבקופי אדם מתקיימת העברה תרבותית, מסורות (למשל, בצורות לעיבוד מזון), ומוסכמות חברתיות שעוברות בצורה תרבותית, בניגוד לתורשתית-גנטית.
לדברי פרדמן, לממצאים החדשים, ולמגמה שהתפתחה בעקבותם, יש השלכות שאינן רק תיאורטיות גרידא, אלא גם על מידת המוסריות והחוקיות של ניסויים בבעלי חיים, ובקופי אדם בפרט, והצורך בהענקת זכויות, כמו הזכות לחיים, הזכות לחופש והזכות לחופש מעינויים.
פרדמן כותבת עבודת דוקטורט בהנחיית הד"ר ויטן מסקוטלנד. מחקרה עוסק בקופים קפוצ'ינים, ובלמידה חברתית ותרבותית בקרבם. היא בודקת כרגע מה מסוגלים הקפוצ'ינים ללמוד זה מזה, ואם הם יכולים ללמוד דרכים טובות יותר להשגת מזון. היא לימדה קוף דרך יעילה יותר לפתוח את כלי המזון, שמאפשרת לו להשיג יותר אוכל. הקוף הועבר לקהילה שאינה מכירה את השיטה, ועכשיו הוא מראה לקפוצ'ינים האחרים את השכלול שלמד. פרדמן בודקת אם הקבוצה תבין שהשיטה טובה יותר ותאמץ אותה או שתדבק בשיטה המקובלת אצלם כיום.
רפרטואר של יותר מאלף מלים
תוכי מסוג ג'אקו. אפשר לתת לך חיבוק? (צילום: רויטרס)נדב לוי הוא זאולוג שהדריך שנים רבות טיולי ספארי אקולוגי באפריקה. הוא אסף סיפורים רבים על בעלי חיים ומה שהוא מכנה "יכולות בלתי מוסברות". אחד האהובים עליו זה הסיפור על תוכי הג'אקו האפריקאים, אלכס ונ'קיסי. "התברר שלתוכים האלה יש רפרטואר של יותר מאלף מלים. הם יודעים לספור ולהגיד משפטים שלמים באנגלית, שמעידים על יצירתיות. נ'קיסי ראה אשה הולכת עם שמלה סגולה, ושאל את האשה שאתה הוא חי, ציירת בשם איימי מורגנה, 'מה את חושבת על השמלה הסגולה?' הוא כאילו מנחש שהיא חושבת על האשה עם השמלה הסגולה. פעם אחרת, הוא ראה אדם מדבר בטלפון, ושאל 'מה יא (מלה שהמציא) עושה עם הטלפון?' איימי הסבירה לו שזאת צורת תקשורת בין בני אדם. הוא שאל אותה, 'האם אני יכול לתת לך חיבוק?' - כאילו הבין שגם זאת צורת תקשורת".
לוי חיבר יחד עם אביו, הפילוסוף הפרופ' (אמריטוס) זאב לוי, את הספר "אתיקה, רגשות ובעלי חיים". לדבריו, המנעד של בעלי החיים הרבה יותר רחב ממה שאנו חושבים. שלל האנקדוטות שהוא מציג כולל דב קוטב שהתחבר עם כלב, אחרי שהתעורר מתרדמת החורף (והיה אמור לטרוף את הכלב, לא להתחבר עמו); נמר שהתחבר עם פרה; לביאה שאימצה גורי ראמים - חמש פעמים בשנתיים. מדי פעם הייתה הלביאה שולחת את הגור לאמו, שתניק אותו, ואחר כך לוקחת אותו שוב.
לפעמים, גם בני האדם מצליחים להבין את מה שבעלי החיים מנסים להגיד להם, אומר לוי. לדבריו, בני המאקו באמזונס, מזהים ארבע סוגי נביחות אצל כלבי הצייד שלהם. כל נביחה מסמנת יונק אחר, ומורה לאנשים לאן עליהם לרוץ במרדף אחרי החיה - או בבריחה ממנה. הנביחות מתייחסות לפקארי, יצור קטן דמוי חזיר; אבוטי, מכרסם קטן; טפיר; ויגואר.
מדענים אחרים עדיין ספקניים
שימפנזה. בעיקר ניסוי וטעיה (צילום: רויטרס)בקרב פרימטולוגים וכמה זאולוגים, אומרת פרדמן, ההנחות החדשות מתקבלות בשמחה רבה. ואולם, מדענים אחרים עדיין ספקניים. הם מקשים ושואלים, האם מדובר בחיקוי או בלמידה מהסוג שנמצא בבני אדם? למשל, אומרת פרדמן, אם שימפנזה מוצא אבן ליד אגוז חצי שבור, הוא עשוי להבין את הרמז ולהשתמש באבן כדי לשבור את שארית האגוז. "במקרה הזה", אומרת פרדמן, "יש בעיקר ניסוי וטעיה". אם, לעומת זאת, השימפנזה יראה שימפנזה אחר שובר אגוז, ויחזור על הפעולות, יתייחסו לכך כאל יכולת יותר מורכבת, שכן היא כרוכה בהבנת הסיבתיות של הפעולה, ולדמיין במוח את הפעולה שראה השימפנזה ולשחזרה בעצמו.
פרסומתהרבה פעמים משווים את הקופים לילדים או מתייחסים אליהם כאל סוג אדם שלא התפתח, במקום להכיר בהם כענף נפרד באבולוציה, כותב הפרימטולוג האמריקאי, קרייג סטנפורד, בספרו "Significant Others". "זה מה שאנו מסוגלים לעשות", אומרת פרדמן, "אולי אנחנו לא מספיק חכמים כדי לראות אותם. זה עוזר לנו איכשהו למקם אותם, אבל אני מאמינה שיש המון דברים שעדיין לא החכמנו מספיק כדי לדעת איך לראות, כי לבעלי חיים אין את הפן המילולי שאפשר לדבר אתו".
"האדם", כתב דאגלס אדמס בספרו "מדריך הטרמפיסט לגלקסיה", "הניח תמיד שהוא אינטליגנטי יותר מהדולפנים, וזאת משום שהוא השיג כל כך הרבה - הגלגל, ניו יורק, מלחמות וכיוצא באלה. בעוד שכל מה שהדולפנים עשו מסתכם בלצחוק זה על זה בתוך המים וליהנות מהחיים. הדולפינים, לעומת זאת, האמינו שהם הרבה יותר אינטליגנטים מהאדם - מאותן סיבות בדיוק".
חוקרים תיעדו בקונגו גורילה שהשתמשה בענף, כדי למדוד את עומק המים. הממצאים המפתיעים משפרים את תדמיתם של הקופים הגדולים
גורילה בטבע. "תגלית מדהימה" (צילום: רויטרס)תצפיות חדשות על התנהגותן של גורילות בטבע הניבו ממצאים מפתיעים, אשר משפרים במקצת את תדימתן הנחותה בהשוואה לקופים אחרים, דוגמת השימפנזה והאורנג אוטנג.
עד עתה סברו מדענים, כי גורילות משתמשות בכלים רק בשבי. שימוש בכלים בטבע נחשב עד כה כיכולת הישרדות השמורה לקופים אחרים בלבד. המחקר הנוכחי מתעד בפעם הראשונה גורילות בטבע המשתמשות בכלים. המחקר, שבוצע ביערות הגשם של הרפובליקה של קונגו, הובל על ידי תומאס ברויר, מה"חברה לשימור חיות הבר" בגן החיות של ברונקס. לדבריו, "מדובר בתגלית מדהימה". "שימוש בכלים בקרב קופים בטבע מספק לנו מבט ערכי על ההתפתחות של המין שלנו, והיכולות של מינים אחרים", אמר.
פרסומתבסוכנות AP דווח, כי הממצא הראשון התקבל כשהגורילה "לאה" ניסתה לחצות בריכת מים שנוצרה בידי פילים, אך מצאה עצמה שקועה עד המותניים לאחר צעדים ספורים בלבד. כדי לטפס החוצה היא תלשה ענף מאחד העצים, ובדקה בעזרתו את עומק המים. גורילה אחרת, "אפי", השתמשה בגזע עץ כדי לתמוך בעצמה, בעודה מלקטת עשבים בידה השניה. היא גם השתמשה בגזע העץ כגשר, כדי לחצות אדמה בוצית.
עד היום נחשבות הגורילות, בצדק או שלא, כבעלות יכולות פחותות בהשוואה לקופים אחרים. הן גדולות, חזקות ואיטיות יותר. המחקר החדש מראה כי לגורילות תכונות דומות לאלה של השימפנזים.
(לוקח לי זמן , אבל לאט לאט, אני אשתלט על כל מה שכתבת.)
נשלח ב-9/9/2005 05:10
"Men cannot do without dogmatical belief....Of all the kinds of dogmatical belief the most desirable appears to me to be dogmatical belief in matters of religion; and this is a very clear inference, even FROM NO HIGHER CONSIDERATION THAN THE INTERESTS OF THIS WORLD.... Men are therefore immeasurably interested in acquiring fixed ideas of God, the soul, and of their common duties to their creator and to their fellow men; for doubt on these first principles would abandon all their actions to the impulse of chance, and would condemn them to live, to a certain extent, powerless and undisciplined.
This then is the subject on which it is most important for each of us to entertain fixed ideas; and unhappily it is also the subject on which it is most dificult for each of us, left to himself, to settle his opinions by the sole force of his reason.
None but minds singularly free from the ordinary anxieties of life- minds at once penetrating, subtle, e and trained by thinking- can even with the assistance of much time and care, sound the depth of these most necessary truths.
And, indeed we see that these philosophers are themselves almost always enshrouded in uncertainties; that at every step the natural light which illuminates their path grows dimmer and less secure; and that in spite of all their efforts, they have as yet only discovered a small number of conflicting notions, on which the mind of man has been tossed about for thousands of years, without either laying a firmer grasp on truth, or finding novelty even in its errors.
Studies of this nature are far above the average capacity of men; and even if the majority of mankind were capable of such pursuits, it is evident that leisure to cultivate them would still be wanting.
Fixed ideas of God and human nature are indispensable to the daily practice of men's lives; but the practice of their lives prevents them from acquiring such ideas.
The first object and one of the principal advantages of religions, is to furnish to each of these fundamental questions a solution which is at once clear, precise, intelligible to the mass of mankind and lasting.
There are religions which are very false and very absurd; but it may be affirmed that any religion which remainss within the circle I have just traced, without aspiring to go beyond it... imposes a salutary restraint on the intellect;... if it do not save men in another world, such religion is at least very conducive to their happiness and their greatness in this.
When the religion of a people is destroyed, doubt gets hold of the highest portions of the intellect, and half paralyzes all the rest of its powers. Every man accustoms himself to entertain none but confused and changing notions on the subjects most interesting to his fellow creatures and himself.
His opinions are ill-defended and easily abandoned: and despairing of ever resolving by himself the hardest problems of the destiny of man, he ignobly submits to think no more about them. Such a condition cannot but enervate the soul, relax the springs of the will, and prepare a people for servitude.
Nor does it only happen, in such a case, that they allow their freedom to be wrested from them; they frequently themselves surrender it. When there is no longer any principle of authority in religion any more than in politics, men are speedily frightened at the aspect of this unbounded independence.
The constant agitation of all surrounding things alarms and exhausts them. As everything is at sea in the sphere of the intellect, they determine at least that the mechanism of society should be firm and fixed; and as they cannot resume their ancient belief, they assume a master.
...It must be acknowledged that equality, which brings great benefits into the world, nevertheless suggests to men ..some very dangerous propensities. It tends to isolate them from each other, to concentrate every man's attention upon himself; and it lays open the soul to an inordinate love of material gratification.
The greatest advantage of religion is to inspire diametrically contrary principles. There is no religion which does not place the object of man's desires above and beyond the treasures of earth, and which does not naturally raise his soul to regions far above those of the senses.
Nor is there any which does not impose on man some sort of duties to his kind, and thus draws him at times from the contemplation of himself. This occurs in religions the most false and dangerous.
Religious nations are therefore naturally strong on the very point on which demcratic nations are weak; which shows of what importance it is for men to preserve their religion as their conditions become more equal.
e....I am at this moment considering religions in a purely human point of view....The chief concern of religions is to purify, to regulate, and to restrain the excessive and exclusive taste for well-being which men feel at periods of equality...
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America,, Bantam Classics, April 2000, Vol. II, First Book, Cap. V, ppg. 530- 537
Comments- Note Tocqueville's focus on the social benefits of religion, even false religion.
One of the things Tocqueville is saying is that democratic peoples need religion to provide them with a certain amount of guidance and stability in a wide-open democratic world , confusing and teeming with possibilities. I have heard the objection posed gainst this point of view: We see that contemporary European nations manage to maintain democratic societies even as they have undergone a secularization much more intense than anything experienced by the US.
I do not know the answer to this objection or, in fact, whether there is one.
Perhaps it could be said that European nations have already once submitted to their "masters" - the submission brought on by the confusion which the loss of religion engenders. I mean the Fascist- Nazi episode. One might say that the horrors of that episode have frightened Europeans away from any further consideration of such submission.
I am aware of the problematicity of this discussion. I am not terribly religious myself so what right do I have to speak of the value of religion for society, for others? As of now, I am simply reporting the opinions of others, renowned thinkers such as Tocqueville.
נשלח ב-6/9/2005 03:34
Meitzitz-
2....Cont. from above-
Sometimes conservatives say- you cannot legislate morality, you cannot really hope to change society from the top down- society must be allowed to change in accordance with its own internal dynamic, organically (I have written earlier that it is not clear what "organic change" means)
( In recent decades, there was discussion of these conservative themes in the context of the government campaign to bring about racial integration in the US- Racial integration of schools and other public facilities was basically forced on the Southern states by the Supreme Court ruling -Brown vs. Board of Education (1954)- Integration of restaurants and other privately owned facilities that serve the public came about by means of federal legislation passed later- These were moves by the government to bring about social change- from the top down, basically coercively,- Voices were raised saying that it wouldn't work- but it seems impossible to deny that it worked to a very large extent even if not completely- Blacks did subsequently enter into the mainstream of American society and even Southern society to quite a significant extent- so it looks like sometimes you can legislate morality and social change----
On the other hand, it is also true that American liberals, in the late 60's and early 70's pushed for forced busing in order to integrate Northern schools. Of course, the schools in the North were segregated not by law but simply in fact (de facto not de jure). In other words, even before the Supreme Cort ruling there was no offical segregation in the North. Black children and white children attended separate schools, respectively, only because they tended overwhelmingly to live in different neighborhoods.
A number of liberal judges handed down decisions under which de facto segregation was declared unacceptable and states and localities were required to institute special busing programs in order to remedy the situation. Children were bused to schools far away from their own neighborhoods for the sake of achieving a racial balance in the student populations.
Many white parents (not without reason) regarded the schools in the black neighborhoods as scary crime-ridden, drug-infested places and were very much
opposed to having their children attend those schools. Fierce White resistance to forced busing programs continued unabated (-(including demonstrations that sometimes turned violent)until finally everyone, even staunch liberals gave up on the idea-
So- then in the instance of the forced busing issue, one could see an illustration of conservative objections to forced social change. Well-meaning judges and various liberal leaders were not sucessful in inducing Northern White parents to cooperate with an integration program)
m.
3.- This is really a further explication of -1-. Conservatives believe that one of the ways by means of which we learn about absolute morality is by "listening" to the traditions and the social consensus of relatively decent, humane societies. Noone develops his original sense of morality by attending philosophy classes, obviously.
As previously stated, conservatives see what we consider relatively decent, humane societies as living by the light of absolute morality as it is reflected in the complicated human world.
Often enough, conservatives make the point in a way that goes even further. They say- society itself is a repository of wisdom, the wisdom accumulated through the experience of generations. The idea is that societies with a well- developed sense of morality embody a certain wisdom in terms of maintaining institutions that allow for the flourishing of true moral values to the extent that that is possible within real world constraints.
Sometimes conservatives say that intellectuals suffer from hubris, from a kind of insane arrogance. The hubris of intellectuals consists of their idea that one man sitting alone in a room and thinking, or a small intellectual elite possesses more wisdom than society as a whole. Society, they say is they greatest embodiment of wisdom, the wisdom reflected in the actual life of a people.
Meitzitz-
I assume that when you ask these questions about Sparta, about oppressed groups in general, your interest in these questions is not confind to the question of how these arguments bear on the specific question of animal rights. I assume you are interested in the general question of how conservatives have dealt with such situations.
As far as the issue of slavery is concerned, we know, of course, that we have no record of anyone in the ancient world objecting to the institution of slavery as such. All we have is those like the Stoics (Seneca etc.) who argued that slaves were not essentially worth less than their masters and ought therefore to be treated humanely.
I have seen writings, produced in modern times, by disciples of Leo Strauss, in which an attempt is made to defend the institution of slavery in the ancient world. It is important for Straussians to undertake defences of this sort because they wish to speak on behalf of the ancient philosophical tradition- Plato, Aristotle,- and they claim there is much for us to learn from this tradition in the realm of values. Of course then, they must deal with the fact that these great philosophers of old did not speak out against slavery which seems to us like a truly grave injustice.
Some of these Straussians make the point that if we examine the historical record we shall find that slavery was not abolished in modern times until such time as technological developments had already occurred that rendered slavery unnecesary for the functioning of the economy.
The ancients may simply have been unable to imagine how the economy could possibly function without slavery. These Straussians go on to say that ancient philosophers might have been aware of the possibilities inherent in technological development bHowever, they were unwilling to advocate the pursuit of technological development because they foresaw that it would come at great cost.
They foresaw that technological development would lead to damage to the natural environment and the development of terrifying weapons of war. Perhaps one might add that they foresaw that technological development would lead to grandiose economic projects the factory system) which would condemn entire populations to lives of such hard toil that, although nominally free, there would be little to distinguish them from slaves. (All of which did in fact come about...)t
As to the point that a society that is based on slavery has no right to exist I believe two points are made. One, since the economic realities of the time were what they were, even if the slaves would somehow be able to liberate themselves by mounting a revolution, the slaves themselves would go ahead and enslave some other population in order to enable their society to survive. What then would be the point of agitating in favor of the freeing of slaves?
Another point that I have seen made is the elitist point. No matter how one arranges things socially, it is said, the possibility of achieving full humanity is given only to a small portion of the human race. s
Because nature is cruel and talent and intelligence are distributed unevenly, because, one way or another, most people will wind up having to spend their lives supporting their families, only a very small portion of the human race will be able to devote its lives to great things to political affairs,,to philosophy, , to learning.
It is only possible for people to reach the heights of self-cultivation if they have leisure. And these leisured ones who write the great books and perform the great deeds are the ones who give something to posterity.
In a world where the burden of labor were distributed more evenly noone would have enough leisure to reach the heights of self-cultivation. It is better, it is said , that some should reach full humanity than that none should reach it.
I know this is a hard, cold, one might say heartless argument and I am not endorsing it. I am just presenting it as a conservative response I know of to the question of how to view a situation in which a certain population is terribly oppressed by another population.
I apologize for not being able to present exact mekoros for the Straussian shmooz right now; I will try to dig them up.
In fact I remember reading that similar arguments were advanced by apologists for Southern Black slavery in the 19th Ce. US. It was argued that slavery was needed so a leisured class devoted to culture could exist. It was also argued that immigrant wokers in Northern factories were paid very little, worked very hard and in general treated abonimably, that they were, in fact, "wage slaves". It was also argued that not all slaves were unhappy; that many of them were childlike creatures who preferred the security of slavery to the uncertainties of freedom.
Meitzitz- You write that you suspect that conservatives are only interested in the values of their own societies and are not really interested in questions of absolute moral truth at all. As usual you are asking the real questions, the disturbing provocative questions. S'iz ah groise shmooz-
There is an essay on modern nationalism that appears in I. Berlin's collection Against the Current. In that essay, Berlin discusses the kind of Romanticist thought that is associated with the more extreme varieties of nationalism. Romantic nationalistic thinkers often put forth the conception of society as an organism. The life of an individual is seen, according to this conception, as having meaning only in the context of his own society, of his own tradition.
An individual torn away from his own traditions is without direction, a part of an organism that has been cut away from the whole. He is like a leaf torn from the tree (the Tree of Life); he is cut off rom all that is alive, he is nothing.
According to these thinkers rational analytical thought is basically the devil. It chops everything up into litte bits and tends to make everything dry and lifeless. One who engages in rational thought beyond a certain point loses touch with all that is real and alive; he turns into the living dead.
According to these thinkers, values are meaningless outside the context of a living culture. It makes no sense for them to speak of universal values. Man's real life is as Man in society. Other than that there is only the coldness and deadness of alienation and bitter solitude.
These thinkers mocked at the concept of universal values and insisted that an individual ought to be totally and unthinkingly devoted to the values of his own society and culture and to the good of his own society even to the extent of desiring to see one's own society conquer other societies and subjugate them.
Berlin describes Burke as talking something like this in his wilder moods.I don't know that Burke was much interested in conquest. However, he was quite attached to the metaphor of society as organism. I suppose if we wish to be charitable to Burke, we might say that extreme nationalism and even Fascism represent the kelippah of Burkean thought much as Jacobinism represents the kelippah of liberalism.
Berlin, of course, comments upon the extremism of these thinkers and stresses that they express themselves in such a fashion as to make the reality of any universal values impossible. Berlin finds the idea of not believing in any possibility of universal values as horrifying and inhuman. a
The fact is that there were conservative thinkers who objected to the Nuremberg trials. They objected on the grounds that there is no justification for trying an individual for committing crimes that were not violations of the law of the state under which he was living.
(One of the most well-known conservatives to put forth this point of view was an American named Albert Jay Nock.)
n.
I am certainly not going to endorse this conservative objection to the Nuremberg trials.
However, I would like to point out that it is not clear to me that what is being expressed in this objection is simply a strongly expressed particularism and a denial of universal values.
I think the point might have been that there is a certain amount of justice to the argument put forth by some Nazis that they were only following orders. The conservatives putting forth the arguments cited above might have meant, I think, that only those on the highest echelon of the Nazi leadership could be held responsible for the evils committed.
People lower down on the ladder were, they meant to argue, acting in the way in which good soldiers and citizens are expected to act, that is, following the orders of their superiors. The lower downs were not the ones making the decisions etc.
In the field of legal theory in the contemporary US, there is a school known as judicial positivism. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a well-known adherent of this school. The adherents of this school are usually considered conservative and they are known to dislike abstract rights talk.
As is common among American judicial conservatives, the judicial positivists decry judicial activism, inveighing against what they see as the arrogance of liberal judges who go around "creating new rights out of thin air." These judicial positivists prefer to leave the direction of public policy, to the greatest extent possible, in the hands of legislative majorities.
The adherents of this school state that it is not the place of a judge to impose his own values on the process of constitutional interpretation. They say that real power in the world is in the hands of majorities, that minorities are able to continue existing only because the majority consents to tolerate them.
They dispprove of talk of abstract rights or the higher law. Rights, they believe, are conferred by majorities and the only law that is real is the law of a state that has managed to gain the assent of the majority of its citizens. These conservatives seem to be flat-out particularists denying the reality of any universal moral law or , at least, denying its relevance to actual practice in a democracy.
In fact, a prominent Straussian, Harry Jaffa conducts an ongoing campaign against the judicial positivists. Jaffa also considers himself a conservative but he thinks the judicial positivists are the wrong kind of conservative.
Jaffa points out that their disdain for the notion of a higher law would lead to the conclusion that many judges who handed down decisions in favor of civil rights for blacks not because of any particular constitutional niceties but just because they thought "it was right" acted wrongly. He (Jaffa) finds this conclusion untenable and sees the judicial positivists as almost nihilistic.
He accuses the judicial positivists of what he calls "creeping Calhounism." This is a reference to John C. Calhoun the firebrand early 19th Ce. Southern leader who objected to the Declaration of Independence. (I mentioned Calhoun much earlier in this discussion.)
Calhoun argued that by endorsing the Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers had burdened the coming American generations with an impossibly idealistic vision. This "all men are created equal," he thought, has caused us and will continue to cause us no end of trouble.
Calhoun thought that the proper attitude for Americans to take was to see their own revolution and continuing democratic system as , basically, having nothing to do with any sort of idealism. Americans ought to see their own struggle for independence and their loyalty to their own country and system as rooted simply in their own self-interest.
Calhoun lamented the fact that the founding fathers had adopted the Declaration. We would have done better, he said, to have simply said that we were breaking away from Britain because we didn't want to pay their high taxes.
Jaffa ses the judicial positivists as representing the cynical spirit of Calhoun. This controversy is a case where the issue of particularism vs. universalism is highlighted in an intra-conservative family squabble.
When I wrote earlier that the conservative believes in universal values, I did not mean to say that all conservatives have always shared that belief. I only meant that a conservative could believe in universal values and still maintain the typical conservative respect for cultural particularity. Also, that there have been and there still are conservatives who b do in fact believe in universal values.u
Meitzitz- You seem to be much concerned with the question of values- How can we know which culture is right? etc.
These questions concerning values are indeed great and terrible questions. It doesn't seem to me that I i have anything worthwhile to offer by way of answers.
However, I would like to say: The American philosopher Richard Rorty and others have pointed out that such metaphysical questions are seldom asked in the Anglo- American world. Rorty points to the examples of Dickens and George Orwell, two men who became famous for their calls for people to exercise more decency. He (Rorty) finds it noteworthy that neither of these men is known to have devoted much time to pondering the question of the very basis of morality.
It seems that Orwell took it for granted that it was appropriate for him to call upon people to be more moral even though he was not putting forth a metaphysical justification for morality.
I have also read a similar thing concerning Isaiah Berlin. He opposes determinism and political radicalism because of the evil he sees as likely to result from the adoption of these doctrines. He does not trouble himself to put forth a philosophical case against them.
I think there are many today who see the thing in some such way. They believe that it time for us to accept that we believe in what we call decency even if we can find no philosophical argument to support this belief of ours.
I am not bringing up this Anglo point of view in order to endorse it ; just to introduce it into the discussion. (I seem to be deadset on not endorsing anything)
You have posed the question - Whether there is any universal objective standard for moral judgment or is it all just a matter of sentiments which differ from culture to culture.
I think our present situation is somewhat complicatd because we modern liberals find our sentiments leading us to universal values. We are not content, in terms of our moral judgments, to just live within our own culture but, it seems to me that we do not want anyone to be a Nazi or anything like that at any time, anywhere.-
Animal rights- RE: Your point to the effect that there is pretty much nothing in it for the animals in the present situation so perhaps we ought to view contemporary society as irredeemably oppressive- and undeserving of further existence-
Actually, I am under the impression that animals gain quite a good deal from the present state of affairs
es.t. For instance, people keep pets. It is true that pets are subject to the whims of their owners and they live in the context of a hierarchy in which they are basically on the bottom. o
However, It seems that most experts agree that a cat or dog is far better off living in a home than being "free" on the street where it would need to scrounge for food, would get into possibly fatal fights with other animals, might get hit by a car, would be subject to the elements etc .
I have also read that there are many who believe that animals gain greatly from the continued existence of the livestock industry, paradoxically. This is because the livestock industry is involved in the keeping alive, feeding and generally taking care of myriad cows, sheep, goats, pigs,chickens, and turkeys.s.
Yes, they are all destined for slaughter - but, let us remember that these are domesticated animals that cannot fend for themselves and need human beings to take care of them. Human beings are not likely to bother keeping these species alive, not in such great numbers, anyway, if they would not be interested in eventually consuming their meat.
נשלח ב-5/9/2005 19:47
מייציץ,
ראשית, תודה על ההתייחסות. כבר חששתי שאין זה לכבודך להתייחס אלי..
ולגוף הדברים, דומה ולחינם אתה כורך יחד את השמרנות של המוסר עם השמרנות בתיאולוגיה. דברי אמורים על שמרנות בתיאולוגיה. מעתה, מתוך שלשות האפשרויות שהעמדת בפני לבחור מביניהם:
(א. שזה שמשהו נמצא בסדר הקיים וזה שמשהו מקובל על פי המסורת , זה עצמו יסוד מספיק לקבל משהו כטוב ונכון;
ב. גישה נאיבית שמסורות ורגשות אחרות מסוגלות לטפח מה שיכול להיחשב רוע אמיתי , אבל זו המקובלת עלי, משום מה , אינה מסוגלת לכך;
ג. שאין שום סטנדרטים חיצוניים וכל שיפוט נעשה מתוך תרבות מסוימת וממילא זה חסר משמעות לדבר על טוב ורע מחוץ להקשר תרבותי כזה או אחר , וזהו הרלטיביזם);
אני בוחר בגישה הראשונה, אך לא כלפי המוסר. וכך נופלת מעלי הקושיה איך אני יכול להיות שמרן ולרצוח עם, כיון שבזה, אכן, איני שמרן.
וסומך אני עליך שתמצא לבד את החילוק בין שמרנות במוסר לבין שמרנות בדעות...
יתכן ומה שהביאך לחשדני בשמרנות בדעות מוסריות, הוא היותך מייחס את נידון האשכול דנן למוסר. יש בזה משהו, אך כאן השאלה היא בעיקר תיאולוגית, על מעמדו של האדם בבריאה ביחס לשאר הברואים (ולא: מה צריך לעשות נזר הבריאה לשאר הברואים שאינם נזר, שזו כבר שאלה מוסרית).
נשלח ב-5/9/2005 18:54
Meitzitz-
(Cont. from above)-
2. Getting too far out ahead of existing social consensus on things is likely to just not work. The called for shifts in society-wide moral sensibility are not likely to take hold. You cannot expect vey large numbers of people to execute leaps of moral perception. By advocating far-reaching changes, you are creating undesirable social conflict and stoking resentments. You are subjecting society to this, ultimately, in vain, because you will not succeed in bringing about the desired changes anyway.
s
נשלח ב-5/9/2005 18:36
Meitzitz-
If you have read what I have written thus far, you may well be wondering- What is this business about social consensus? We should seek to know the genuine moral truth about things; why should we allow the social consensus to dictate to us in matters of morality?
1.-It is not good for intellectuals to get too far out ahead of the existing social consensus on morality.
We cannot afford to subject society to bold leaps forward in moral consciousness, moral sensibility. Such leaps would tend to undermine the sense of continuity, stability and tradition which is needed in order to establish morality in society on a firm footing. If people get a sense that things in the moral sphere are highly changeable, quite relative, ultimately that makes morality in general seem too lacking in firmness, too light a thing... as in - Well you can say this, you can say that.. so who really knows anyway... At one time people thought this way about things, at other times people thought about things in a different way so who really knows..
I think many intelligent conservatives understand that no existing society can actually have values that just reflect the absolute truth in a direct unmediated way. However, they believe that those societies that we consider decent and humane give their allegiance to values that are rooted in some perception of the absolute truth, a glimmer of the absolute truth, if you will.
Conservatives tend to think that the social order, the sense of morality, civilization in general are fragile things that can easily be damaged and endangered. Conservatives seek to protect what is of value in the moral perceptions of a decent, humane society. They seek to protect that glimmer of absolute truth. In line with this they are wary of subjecting existing social values to too much criticism.
One big conservative mantra is - The Best is the enemy of the Good. Trying to push too far too fast in the direction of realizing absolute moral values in society is likely to have the effect of endangering whatever hold on genuine moral values society already has.
I suppose that many conservatives believe that when they defend existing social values as if those values were absolute, they are in a way telling the truth. Because in defending existing social values they are, according to their own perception of things, defending the cause of absolute morality in the real world. However, they would not wish to put things that way publicly. What people, in general, need to hear is that accepted social values are just right.
Yes, we have come upon the question of the Noble Lie here.
נשלח ב-5/9/2005 06:42
Meitzitz-
To be perfectly clear about it-
The answer to question 1- is - Yes, even for a conservative- at least for many conservatives- There could be situations where one might say that since a certain group is subject to brutally severe oppression within an existing society it would be correct that the society in question should be destroyed for the sake of the liberation of that group . Also, it may well be the case that a society that is unjust beyond a certain point forfeits its moral right to exist.
The answer to 2- is - that Yes, - since the point made in 1- is true, - questions of abstract morality can be of immediate practical importance even for the conservative- - One might indeed find oneself in a situation where one needs to decide whether a certain group is so oppressed that relieving it from its oppression justifies the destruction of the oppressive society
And the answer to 3- is - Yes, it seems to me that many conservatives of the past and present did believe and do today believe in absolute values- The conservative emphasis on practicality and the good of society stems not from a fanatical particularism that refuses to acknowledge any universal good, any good beyond the benefit of one's own society- Rather, the conservative emphasis on practicality and the good of society is largely reactive- It is a response to what conservatives see as a failure on the part of the Enlightenment's apostles to adequately acknowledge the dificulties inherent in translating moral absolutes into workable plans of action in the real world-
In the case of the animal rights, animal equality discussion- I think it would not seem to most conservatives that we are dealing with a situation where we ought seriously to consider whether contemporary society is deeply unjust on account of its treatment of its animals, so deeply unjust that it deserves to be destroyed for the sake of the animals and because a truly deeply unjust society has no right to exist-
Because- the present state of our moral intuitions and the lack of a social consensus in favor of wide-ranging animal rights or even equality does not exist now- This points us in the direction of seriously doubting whether universal morality requires of us to make drastic changes in the social status of animals-
And because of that- there is certainly not enough there on the justice for animals side to outweigh the very real concerns we ought to have concerning the possible or even likely deleterious social effects a drastic extension of the sphere of sympathy in the direction of including animals would entail- We are talking about a possible downgrading of the status of humanity which could lead to a terrible indifference toward human suffering, human needs, human life.
נשלח ב-5/9/2005 03:14
Meitzitz-
OK- Let me try to answer your questions and respond to your comments as directly as I can with as little in the way of historical waxing as I can manage-
I believe that it is possible for conservatives to believe in absolute universal values.
You are right when you say that there is no such thing as looking at society and deciding on the desirability of certain social policies from a purely empiricist perspective. It is true that it is impossible to put forth any opinion as to what should be done in society without taking a stand on questions of value.u
I think conservatives put so much stress on practical questions, on the good of society, not because they lack belief in other values. Rather, I think conservatives focus so strongly on practicality and the maintenance of the social order because they perceive that those on the Left don't take those things seriously enough.
Conservatives think they need to keep talking about these things because it seems to them that the dominant Enlightenment discourse fails to do them justice.
Of course then, it is not the case that any and all injustices ought to be tolerated.
The conservative point is that things come at the expense of other things. The demand for absolute justice when it is pursued in the real world can easily lead to a weakening of society or even its destruction. The unrelenting pursuit of this demand can also wind up leading to nothing more than greater injustices. (Marxist tyrannies which always presented themselves as seeking absolute justice are a case in point.)
Therefore there must be a careful and judicious weighing of matters, a reckoning.
How grave is the injustice under consideration? How great is the social cost of acting to remedy this injustice likely to be? One must weigh one against the other. Is the injustice grave enough to warrant the risk of possible damage to the fabric of society?
In the case of animal rights one might say- It is certainly not clear to us right now that animals ought to be conceived of as having rights, even less clear that they ought to be conceived of as having extensive rights, even less clear that they ought to be thought of and treated as eual to humans.
I say these things are unclear because a) We, in the West do not have anything in our tradition that militates in favor of treating animals in this way -b) We certainly do not have, right now, anything approaching a social consensus in favor of treating animals in this way- which means- c) that most of us feel, or believe, somehow- you might say intuitively- that humans have a much greater moral claim upon us than animals do
I think we have these intuitions concerning the relative worth of humans and animals either because a)Somehow, we do actually believe that there is something of the divine in man- Man is created in the image of G_d. Humans have souls etc. or -b)We regard humans as superior because of their more highly developed consciousness including highly developed personal consciousness. We extend moral concern to mentally deficient humans by association- or c)- We feel ourselves more bound morally to humans because we are much more easily able to identify with humans, to see them as our own- (See above, the beginning of the Eshkol, George Orwell, Thomas Nagel etc.)
Given the relative weakness of the case for animal rights right now on the one hand and the strongly disturbing possibility that extending rights in this way would lead to a loss of respect for human life and human rights by detracting from the special status of humanity- how far is it worth it for us to p go in pushing the cause of animal rights, animal equality with humans etc. ? .
נשלח ב-5/9/2005 01:52
Meitzitz-
-Would conservatives accept that there are certain instances where a class of people or( to be fair to the subject of this eshkol,) creatures, sentient beings are so oppressed by a certain society that it is in fact acceptable or even desirable that the social order in question be overthrown, destroyed completely?
Since I believe that it is possible for conservatives to believe in universal moral absolutes and that many conservatives have in fact had that belief, I think the answer is -Yes.
Yes, there are the Sodoms and the Gomorrahs. Yes, there are societies that are so unjust that they forfeit their right to exist. One might give Nazi Germany as an example.
However, getting quite specific about it- I must wax historical
נשלח ב-5/9/2005 01:29
Meitzitz-
Cont. from above- I hope I have made it sufficiently clear how difficult it is to say anything about conservatives in general., Indeed, I know that in the American context, there are free-market conservatives, nationalistic conservatives, traditionalist conservatives, libertarian conservatives etc. The conservative movement in the US, to the extent that such a movement can be said to exist at all, is a coalition of a number of ideological tendencies.
Having put forth my caveat, I am going to go ahead and generalize with the understanding that everything I say is approximate and tentative and in the somewhat hopeful belief that there is at least some value to these generalizations (that they are true to a significant extent in many if not most instances etc. )
(I would be so bold as to say that most contemporary schools of conservatism fear the democratic tendency to egalitiarianism. They are concerned that as the passion for equality plays itself out in the real world it leads to the adoption of social policies that undermine other cherished values such as freedom.)
סשמאל]
נשלח ב-5/9/2005 00:54
Meitzitz-
(Cont. from above- We can see then, in the case of the question of capitalism, economic freedom vs. caring for the poor, there has been a historical shift. Whereas at one time , conservatives were associated with the position that assigned greater weight to the position advocating more concern for the poor, today conservatives are seen as mostly arrayed on the other side of the question.
One might explain this shift in terms of historical developments. The conservative tendency is to side with the established order. 19th Ce. Britain was witnessing the completion of the historical shift from
a society dominated by the aristocracy to one in which businessmen, entrepeneurs are the dominant class. The old aristocratic order incorporated values of noblesse oblige, under which members of the nobility felt themselves bound to show social concern by assisting those less fortunate than themselves.
The new idea of individualistic businessmen devoting themselves to the naked pursuit of profit outside the context of a tradition incorporating the value of noblesse oblige still seemed somewhat revolutionary in that historical context. Therefore conservatives often opposed the interests of the business class in that time and place.
In the 20th Ce. US, on the other hand, the prerogatives of the business class were well established going back to the 19th Ce. What seemed new in that historical context was the extensive network of somewhat economically redistributive programs proposed and eventually brought into being by FDR and his cohorts. In that context too, conservatives were acting conservative, defending s older social arrangements against proposed and eventually real changes.
One might also point to differences between the respective traditions of the two countries with the US, a more Calvinist frontier nation having a more individualistic tradition and with its conservatives being more suspicious of collectivist approaches.
Of course, one might wax cynical as many have and say that conservatives always just defend whomsoever is in power at the moment which does seem like a sensible path for intellectuals, who present themselves as sincere but are actually quite self-interested, to follow.
And, indeed, of course, one might wonder whether the real question here is one having to do with semantics, with language. One might argue that conservatives of one time and place have little in common with conservatives of another time and place. The main thing they have in common is the name "conservative".
Indeed, there may be little or no actual content held in common by all those who are given the name "conservative". There may simply be various cultural and historical reasons why the name "conservative" was applied to a number of disparate phenomena. Although I can't identify these cultural and historical factors right now, it seems reasonable to consider that such factors might exist.
As Wittgenstein put it- Words are not names of things--There is the possibility of viewing the relationship between words and the complexes of things they stand for in terms of "family resemblances"- etc.)
נשלח ב-5/9/2005 00:03
Meitzitz-
I would like to respond directly to your questions now. BTW- I read everything you wrote, not just your final summing up of the whole presentation into three questions.e
However,it would be the easiest thing, I think, for me to focus on the questions as a means of formulating a response.
A general comment: It is very difficult if not impossible to answer questions about what "the conservative" thinks about this or that.
I don't think conservatism is an ideology with clearly worked out doctrines. Over the course of history, there have been conservatives on various sides of various issues. (There have been certain notable historical shifts. For instance, in 19th Ce. Britain, Disraeli and the Conservatives were in favor of a somewhat paternalistic system within which the poor would be protected aginst the possibly brutal consequences of unfettered capitalism. The Manchester School, on the other hand, was in favor of laissez-fare economics, complete freedom for business with no government interference or restriction. This latter position was known as the liberal position. In the context of the 20th Ce. US, those in favor of the New Deal and other social welfare programs have been known as liberals while those more sympathetic to the prerogatives of business have been known as conservatives.)--- s.
נשלח ב-4/9/2005 23:17
Meitzitz-
You are much concerned with ultimate philosophical questions.
I think a conservative response might be to say that it is not always appropriate to be looking for ultimate answers.
When we have public policy questions, is it the appropriate response to convene a meeting of philosphers to decide, once and for all, what are the true absolute moral values?
Burke commented along these lines. Philosophers, he said , ought to keep quiet when it comes to political questions. What do they know of the affairs of the world? What do they know about building roads, collecting taxes, running an army etc? We ought to consult men of affairs, people who are actually involved in the running of things in the world, when we wish to ascertain what is to be done in the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------If we don't maintain a sense of moral values which can be put into action immediately, we will get lost, we will become paralyzed. That is why we need TRADITION.
Also, we might succeed in finding out a lot more about genuine morality by examining specific real-world situations in all their complexity rather than by focusing on abstract questions.
I would like to stress this point.
The conservative does not just disagre with any number of specific conclusions reached by any number of philosophers. The conservative thinks the philosophers are often or almost always asking the wrong questions. The important question for the conservative is -How shall we live in the world? What shall we DO about the problems of the world?..
