"Human Exceptionalism" Exceptionally Arrogant

Friends, I've landed in Los Angeles, and I'm now writing to you from a hotel lobby computer while waiting to check in. I have a lovely story to share with you later tonight or tomorrow morning about the flight here, but in the meantime, please enjoy this smart, thoughtful guest post from Tracy Habenicht, author of the always thought-provoking blog Digging Through the Dirt. -S. Ernst

For hundreds of years white men have lived as if the Earth and its inhabitants and resources were theirs for the taking.

Animals were beneath them, people of color were reduced to "savages," and the land was stripped and degraded. White men placed themselves on the top rung of the planet's hierarchy.

Much of that belief exists today in the form of "human exceptionalism," what "bioethicist" and animal-rights opponent Wesley J. Smith defines as "the view that ultimate moral value comes with being a member of the human species."

Women and people of color are now included next to white men, at least by definition, but animals and nature are still looked down upon.

Animal rights, of course, is at odds with human exceptionalism. While animal rights supporters believe that animals exist for their own reasons and shouldn't be used by people (for food, clothing, entertainment, etc.), human exceptionalism contends that people have a right to use animals as we wish, provided we do so "humanely" -- whatever that means.

The concept of human exceptionalism is exceptionally arrogant. Yes, people have accomplished a lot throughout history, both technologically and artistically, and it's fine to view ourselves as unique. But to think we are the best creatures on the planet is absurd.

We are the one animal who destroys its surroundings instead of being able to live with nature. A human exceptionalist would accuse me -- and all animal-rights supporters -- of being "anti-human" but far from it.

Unlike human exceptionalists, animal-rights activists realize that animal rights and human rights are not mutually exclusive.

If advocates win rights for animals, then the longstanding notion of "human exceptionalism is over," [Smith] said, and with it the idea of human rights.

Human exceptionalism may end -- and good riddance -- but the notion of human rights will remain.

In fact, animal-rights activists support human rights. Many advocate on behalf of animals while also supporting the advancement of rights for people -- gay rights, women's rights, civil rights, workers' rights, etc. And people whose primary focus is human rights can support animal rights daily simply by not eating animals.

In his book "Animal Rights/Human Rights," sociology professor David Nibert argues that human oppression of animals "is motivated primarily by economic interests and, what is more, that it is profoundly and permanently entwined with human oppression of other humans."

Just as animal rights and human rights are connected, all the inhabitants of the Earth are interconnected. We all are valuable and unique. People have some abilities that nonhuman animals likely will never have. On the other hand, though, animals have abilities that people likely never will.

For example, a mother hen can communicate with her chicks while they are still in their eggs -- and the chicks chirp responses.

Of course, people have more power than animals -- at least when we have guns and cages. But that's all the more reason that it's our duty to protect them from harm. Being compassionate doesn't take away from our uniqueness as people; in fact, it adds to our humanity.

It's time for people to become a little more humble, to realize we don't have all the answers, to recognize our interdependence with animals and nature.

We can -- and should -- celebrate the positive traits of being human. But we should also recognize that all living beings are exceptional in their own ways.

---
Photo courtesy of AnimalSuffering.com.