Mar 5, 2018 08:34 PM
(This post was last modified: Mar 5, 2018 08:34 PM by C C.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eELfSwqJNKU&t=19s
The Rise of Antihumanism
https://culturalanalysis.net/2018/03/01/...ihumanism/
EXCERPT: The Enlightenment project postulated rationality as the highest normative principle, and humanity (not limited to Homo-sapiens but inclusive of all beings possessing rational agency) as the ultimate value. Today humanity is no longer the ultimate value for the Humanities (rebranded with the pre-Enlightenment term Liberal Arts) and this practical devaluation implicitly negates humanist ethics. The Liberal Arts still capitalise on the humanistic sentiment, but it is clear that humanism is no longer regarded as a priori normative but subordinate to other, more obscure value-commitments.
[...] Humanist ethics is grounded in universal recognition of the value of one’s own existence (limited to beings capable or rational thought and intentional action) and in the a priori determination that the capacity to endow value on anything, entails unconditional value of rational agency. It does not, on a strictly rationalistic interpretation, entail rights, obligations, the equality of treatment or outcome, but only that we are rationally committed to value agency of others as much as we value our own agency, and above all else. Conversely, the ongoing departure from the premise that ‘humanity is the ultimate value’ is essentially ungrounded. It is simply assumed that extinction of non-human species ought to be prevented at human expense, that sustainability is more ethical than total exploitation and resource substitution, that species egalitarianism is better than anthropocentrism, or that humanity is the greatest threat to the Earth. It is unclear why we should accept any of these value judgements, but it seems that many are driven by what I call sentimentalist-hedonic motivation (see Against Ethical Veganism), a radical-subjectivist position with an impossible aspiration to normative universality on the basis of purely subjective sentiments.
[...] Subjective determination of what is right or wrong is not consistent with the norms of rationality (more on this here: On What is Right) and, as [Errol] Lord argued, what we are rationally required to do is just what we Ought to do. The resulting confusion and tribalism about values heralds regression to violence as the only arbiter of truth. Radical-subjectivism, social ideology and sentimentalist ethics bring back to life the archetypal Tyrant whom the Enlightenment theorists regarded as the antithesis of humanism. Tyranny is perfectly consistent with the bare universalisation thesis if the objective norms are rejected. The Tyrant does indeed will a universal law: that power is the ultimate virtue, a moral obligation of every agent to try to dominate all other agents....
MORE: https://culturalanalysis.net/2018/03/01/...ihumanism/
Philosophers Help Fight for Chimpanzee Personhood
http://dailynous.com/2018/03/05/philosop...ersonhood/
EXCERPT: Seventeen philosophers co-authored and submitted to the New York Court of Appeals an amicus curiae brief in support of legal personhood for a pair of chimpanzees. [...] A central issue in the decision of whether to grant habeas corpus relief to the chimpanzees is whether they are legal persons. It is on this issue that the philosophers wrote their brief. They argue that the court, in its previous decision, has failed to use a “consistent and reasonable definition ‘personhood’ and ‘persons.'” [...] In a description of the brief, two of its authors, Andrew Fenton and Syd M Johnson, say more about why they think it is important:
Why does it matter if the courts agree that Tommy and Kiko are persons? Right now, they are being held in solitary enclosures and are legally unprotected from being confined in this way even though doing so harms them. They are unprotected because under the law there are only persons or things, and Tommy and Kiko are not recognized as persons. As far as we know, their current owners are not breaking any animal welfare laws, so their solitary captivity seems perfectly legal. This is a fundamental flaw with animal welfare laws—while they can protect animals from some forms of outrageous abuse (starvation, neglect), they are otherwise silent about whether other important interests of animals are served, such as their freedom of movement, or their ability to socialize with others of their kind. Only persons have rights, including rights to bodily liberty. So, unless and until Tommy and Kiko are recognized as persons, they remain legal things lacking even the most basic rights, including the right to live as chimpanzees, with other chimpanzees.
MORE: https://www.nonhumanrights.org/blog/upda...ers-brief/
