A thought experiment about slavery

[ribozyme]

This question attempts to explore what should be granted “human rights.”

My question will be indeed bizarre:

Is it morally acceptable to enslave Homo erectus? Of course, they are already extinct, but are you human? And if they are not human, should they be enslaved to be our servants?

Here’s something interesting on Homo erectus:

The applications of this [Piagatian] theory to intelligence of monkeys, apes, and pre-human hominids have been summarized by Parker and McKinney (1999). Their conclusion is that most species of monkeys do not progress beyond the first of Piaget’s stages, so they remain at the cognitive level of human toddlers at the ages of about two years. On the scale of human intelligence, their IQ would be about 12. Apes are at Piaget’s early preoperations stage and reach the cognitive level of the average European 3-4 year old. Their IQ would be about 22. Estimates of the Piagetian level of ability achieved by successive species of hominids from tools they made have been attempted by Wynn (1989). His conclusion is the Homo habilis, living in East Africa around 2.4 million years ago, was making simple stone tools that required the early stages of pre-operational ability, about the same as that of apes. Homo erectus, who appeared about 1.7 million years ago with a somewhat larger brain, made the more sophisticated Acheulian stone tools, including bifaced axes, that would have required concrete operationing thinking of the kind achieved by contemporary European 7-8-year-olds. From this it can be inferred that their IQ would have been about 50."

From page 204 of Richard Lynn’s Race Differences in Intelligence.

To put this in perspective, a person with an IQ of 70 couldn’t understand the rules of baseball.

Same source also states that the EQ (encephalization quotient) of Homo erectus is 5.00 while modern *Homo sapiens *is 7.50.

Would *Homo erectus *possess a “soul.” But whatever, I think it is wrong to allow another being to suffer because of their alleged “inferiority” as was justified with slavery. I only mentioned their cognitive ability so one could have an idea about what it would be like to interact with them.

No, this isn’t a thread to discuss, well,* that *topic if you know what I mean.

 

[Leopard]

There are adult homo sapiens today with IQs of 50 or less. Decide what would be the right way you should treat them, then I think the question of how you should treat homo erectus will answer itself.

 

[ribozyme]

There are adult homo sapiens today with IQs of 50 or less. Decide what would be the right way you should treat them, then I think the question of how you should treat homo erectus will answer itself.

The whole point of asking is to ask whether non-human entities should be granted rights. Are Homo erectus humans? I do not know what “human” means by the way. Well,* Homo erectus *are not humans if we define human by membership in the species Homo sapiens.

I do not know if we should institutionalize them, or let them live in the wild (like they have done millions of years ago).

Homo erectus most certainly possess interests, so they should be included in any ethical calculus.

 

[john_doran]

this question:

This question attempts to explore what should be granted “human rights.”

is not the same as this one:

ribozyme:

The whole point of asking is to ask whether non-human entities should be granted rights.

the answer to the first question is “humans”.

the answer to the second is “yes” (animals have some rights (in some politico-legal regimes), e.g. to exist free from torture).

 

[ateista]

the answer to the first question is “humans”.

the answer to the second is “yes” (animals have some rights (in some politico-legal regimes), e.g. to exist free from torture).

That is a perfectly valid answer, but does not address the original question: should the Homo Erectus enjoy the right to self-determination, which is not granted to animals?

When I read your answer, it brought back an old joke:

There is a big fog in Seattle, and the pilot of a small charter plane is lost. He sees a tall building, and someone in looking out the window on the top floor. He flies close and shouts across: “Where am I?”. The guy shouts back: “You are in the cockpit of a plane!”. The pilot nods, and takes a bee-line to the airport and lands safely. The passengers are grateful and ask the pilot how did he find the airport. The pilot answers: when I asked that guy he gave me a perfectly true and totally useless answer. So I knew he must be a Microsoft support engineer, and I knew the way from the Microsoft building to the airport…

/runs and hides

My answer to the thread: it should be given similar rights as humans enjoy. (A flippant question: whose Homo Erectus are you talking about? )

 

[hasikelee]

That is a perfectly valid answer, but does not address the original question: should the Homo Erectus enjoy the right to self-determination, which is not granted to animals?

What do you mean by self-determination?

Last time I checked monkeys weren’t studying to become engineers or choosing how many monkids they want, or even where to go out to eat for the night.

 

[ateista]

What do you mean by self-determination?

Last time I checked monkeys weren’t studying to become engineers or choosing how many monkids they want, or even where to go out to eat for the night.

Very true. But neither does a human with an IQ of 50 contemplate any of those… and we still do not keep them in cages, nor do we conduct experiments on them. That’s all I meant.

 

[andy120]

The question comes down to what rights (such as life, liberty, etc.) are granted to Homo erectus.

There are those that believe these rights are given to humans because of intelligence. This theory is flawed because humans have a range of intelligence, and those with lower IQs still deserve all ‘human’ rights.

There are those who believe these rights are granted based on self-awareness or emotion. This theory is also flawed because there are humans at different stages of development who might have less self-awareness/emotion than other full grown mammals and certainly no one would claim that they do not deserve ‘human’ rights.

My personal belief, and I what I think is the belief of the Church, is that these rights of life and liberty are granted to human beings by God. Because God created man in His divine image, we are unique of all creation. Therefore, Homo erectus would not have all of the rights of human beings, because it was not human.

Homo erectus ought to be treated as another animal, a creature God created. It does indeed have a soul, as any other animal has a soul, however this soul is not immortal (as a human soul is).

Therefore, Homo erectus is not human and is therefore not granted the same rights as humans. I see no objection to, within reason, using Homo erectus for labor to benefit mankind. If this was wrong, it would also be wrong to ride horses or eat animals.

 

[ribozyme]

Therefore, Homo erectus is not human and is therefore not granted the same rights as humans. I see no objection to, within reason, using Homo erectus for labor to benefit mankind. If this was wrong, it would also be wrong to ride horses or eat animals.

Well, it is wrong to eat some animals…

 

[jman507]

Well, it is wrong to eat some animals…

What animals and why exactly?

 

[ribozyme]

What animals and why exactly?

I personally eat salmon about 6 oz about once a week because I do not want to die of a myocardial infarction or other cardiovascular event. (Maybe I might live long enough to see a post-human utopia.) And also fish oil capsules about twice a day. The standard argument for the consumption of animals is self-preservation. But in the developed world, do you need to eat animals in order to survive (or for optimal health)? I only gave fish as an example because I do not know of any other source for long chain (20-22 carbon) omega-3 fatty acids. But regarding other animals, they are usually consumed for our pleasure (because of their taste).

Regarding eating the products of factory farming (which are the products of immense suffering in animals mainly the notorious conditions of cattle, swine, and poultry), do you have any evidence that eating it will make you healthier than not eating it?

Regarding my fish consumption, I hope that in the future genetic engineering will solve the problem; we need plants would be able to produce long chain omega-3 fatty acids to eliminate the need for animal consumption. (Although algae oil is a source of omega-3, but I do not have access to it.)

 

[Nullasalus]

Is it morally acceptable to enslave Homo erectus? Of course, they are already extinct, but are you human? And if they are not human, should they be enslaved to be our servants?

Slavery implies something beyond the way we treat animals currently. You don’t ‘enslave’ a duck, even if you make foie gras out of it. Or sheep, even if you raise them for wool and meat. Monkeys and apes in zoos/preservations are not enslaved either.

But whatever the case, another has answered the way I would. We don’t enslave the low-IQ’d humans among us. If your question hinges on rights, I’d say it gets technical - sure, they would deserve rights. But those are rights granted purposefully by the deliberations of the certainly human. Now, are they ‘human’? Do they possess souls? Actually, that’s not for me to ask, I say. I can’t really decide if Christopher Hitchens has a soul - I’m up in the air on that one, honestly. What is clear is that someone locked at IQ 50 needs someone to act in their interests.

Though really, I’m pretty skeptical of every measure of intelligence. Even if someone performs at a given estimate, I’m not convinced that determines their potential performance forevermore.

 

[john_doran]

That is a perfectly valid answer, but does not address the original question: should the Homo Erectus enjoy the right to self-determination, which is not granted to animals?

sure, but that’s a third question…

and the answer is “yes, if a homo erectus is considered a person”.

ateista:

When I read your answer, it brought back an old joke:

There is a big fog in Seattle, and the pilot of a small charter plane is lost. He sees a tall building, and someone in looking out the window on the top floor. He flies close and shouts across: “Where am I?”. The guy shouts back: “You are in the cockpit of a plane!”. The pilot nods, and takes a bee-line to the airport and lands safely. The passengers are grateful and ask the pilot how did he find the airport. The pilot answers: when I asked that guy he gave me a perfectly true and totally useless answer. So I knew he must be a Microsoft support engineer, and I knew the way from the Microsoft building to the airport…

/runs and hides

which in turn reminds me of another joke:

a blonde comes to a raging river that she wants to cross, but looking up and down the shoreline, she can’t see a bridge. as she’s standing there, another blonde walks up to the opposite bank of the river. the first blonde sees her and yells out, “hey - how did you get to the other side?”

the other blonde looks at her quizzically for a second, and then yells back, “you ARE on the other side”.

 

[hasikelee]

Very true. But neither does a human with an IQ of 50 contemplate any of those… and we still do not keep them in cages, nor do we conduct experiments on them. That’s all I meant.

That is why those who try to use qualities find themselves in a much of trouble. For example, Sanger who decided a color denotes your value, Hitler who decided ethnicity denotes your value, those who support abortion who decided that age, size or “being wanted” denotes your value, those who support euthanasia who decided that ability denotes your value, etc.

When you want to view humans as things that do or can do, then everything gets pretty confusing, huh?

More to the point, do you have documented scientific studies on every human born with 50 or less IQ not showing any determination whatsoever? No preference above instinct? Furthermore, in the case of those with a low IQ, this is not a naturally occurring aspect of our genetic line, but rather an issue. Take, for example, those who are paralyzed using their eyelashes to communicate.

 

[ribozyme]

That is why those who try to use qualities find themselves in a much of trouble. For example, Sanger who decided a color denotes your value, Hitler who decided ethnicity denotes your value, those who support abortion who decided that age, size or “being wanted” denotes your value, those who support euthanasia who decided that ability denotes your value, etc.

When you want to view humans as things that do or can do, then everything gets pretty confusing, huh?

More to the point, do you have documented scientific studies on every human born with 50 or less IQ not showing any determination whatsoever? No preference above instinct? Furthermore, in the case of those with a low IQ, this is not a naturally occurring aspect of our genetic line, but rather an issue. Take, for example, those who are paralyzed using their eyelashes to communicate.

Regarding IQ, forget about it… just use a measure of absolute intelligence, for example, pretend they have the intelligence of an eight year old.

I wonder if they should be treated differently because they are NOT a* Homo sapiens*. One post in this thread argues that.

 

[john_doran]

I wonder if they should be treated differently because they are NOT a* Homo sapiens*.

no: only if they’re not persons. it’s an open question whether there are (animal) persons that not also homo sapiens.

 

[freesoulhope]

This question attempts to explore what should be granted “human rights.”

My question will be indeed bizarre:

Is it morally acceptable to enslave Homo erectus? Of course, they are already extinct, but are you human? And if they are not human, should they be enslaved to be our servants?

If a homoerectus can’t do basic things that a human being can do; then there of no use in the first place. Secondly, i think it would be naive for a human being to decide what is human, with out an objective moral standard to work by. Why should a human being have any rights?

 

[hasikelee]

Regarding IQ, forget about it… just use a measure of absolute intelligence, for example, pretend they have the intelligence of an eight year old.

I wonder if they should be treated differently because they are NOT a* Homo sapiens*. One post in this thread argues that.

Well, that’s exactly my point, whether it’s IQ, age, looks, abilities, etc.

Why not the intelligence of a 7 year old? What about the difference between an advanced 8 year old and an 8 year old with learning disabilities?

If you’re trying to define personhood by qualities, you’re going to be pretty befuddled.

 

[epostle]

Catechism of the Catholic Church

2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

 

[jman507]

I personally eat salmon about 6 oz about once a week because I do not want to die of a myocardial infarction or other cardiovascular event. (Maybe I might live long enough to see a post-human utopia.) And also fish oil capsules about twice a day. The standard argument for the consumption of animals is self-preservation. But in the developed world, do you need to eat animals in order to survive (or for optimal health)? I only gave fish as an example because I do not know of any other source for long chain (20-22 carbon) omega-3 fatty acids. But regarding other animals, they are usually consumed for our pleasure (because of their taste).

Regarding eating the products of factory farming (which are the products of immense suffering in animals mainly the notorious conditions of cattle, swine, and poultry), do you have any evidence that eating it will make you healthier than not eating it?

Regarding my fish consumption, I hope that in the future genetic engineering will solve the problem; we need plants would be able to produce long chain omega-3 fatty acids to eliminate the need for animal consumption. (Although algae oil is a source of omega-3, but I do not have access to it.)

You never gave an answer why it is wrong to eat animals, unless I read it wrong. I only see a reason why it is permissible to eat an animal – especially salmon. Why is it ok to eat on organisms – a plant – but wrong to eat another – an animal.