Zeke's discussion with my character has made me think. What exactly is it that distinguishes man from animal. What is it practically. I know the theory that divides us into body, soul and spirit and I've heard that our spirit would be the extra and that our soul is different. But how does this work?
What makes us Human?
(53 posts) (8 voices)-
JohnA1nut
Member"Is your planet full of lush greenery, clean water, and a self-sustaining ecosystem? Does everything work completely symbiotically in an awe-inspiring balance of wondrous proportions? Then you need HUMANS!!!!! In just a short few thousand years, humans can completely and utterly mess up your planet. Simply integrate them into your amazing world and watch as they mindlessly gobble up resources, clear cut rain forests, manufacture useless stuff at an alarming rate, spew noxious and/or toxic chemicals into the water and air, deplete the ozone layer, slaughter entire species without a thought, enslave and murder their own kind, divide the planet into imaginary sections, all so they can worship shiny rocks and colorful pieces of paper. So if you're tired of your boring planet, full of peace, tranquility, love, plants, animals and water, then don't hesitate to order some HUMANS today!!!! Thanks to an excess, planet earth has literally billions of these creatures to spare. So come on universe, isn't it time you enjoyed the wonders that only humans can offer?"
From a satire video that I found online.
Sun Feb 15 2009 11:22 pm # -
JTM
MemberThe easily quantifiable answer is that we can combine stone and wood into a single tool, i'd say, though it might be metallic tools that serve as the dividing line. Either way, we make superior tools compared to say, monkeys or sea otters.
The less clear answer is harder, and i don't really know it.
Sun Feb 15 2009 11:33 pm # -
What a great subject--I'm stalling dinner to be able to contribute before I leave the board.
On the theological point, there is more than one conception of man. Nikolaj has described the "trichotomist" view, that man is the combination of three things called spirit, soul, and body. In this view, the body is the physical/material form, the soul is something Platonist, some ephemeral inner person, and the spirit is a distinct ephemeral aspect which only humans have.
I've got trouble with that on several levels, which is why I'm a dichotomist. A dichotomist believes that man that God made a body from materials, added to it a non-physical part called a spirit, and the two became fused together in a way that makes it difficult to see where one ends and the other begins--a unified object called a soul. I note that there are a couple of passages in the Old Testament which speak of the spirits of animals (although since in both Hebrew and Greek the word "spirit" is also the word for "breath", many translations miss this). That, though, means that having a "spirit" is not what makes man different from animals, since having a spirit is that which makes any material being a living creature.
I should include that there is a position called monochotomist. A dear brother of mine, Professor Christopher Heard (Old Testament at Peppardine, if I've got it right), holds this view. It makes man one object, making "spirit" and "body" words for parts of what is one unified thing, a person.
As long as we are on theological answers, though, man was said to be created in the image of God. I have observed many times that at the moment the Bible says this, it has told us a very little about God: that God creates, that His creations are spoken into existence, that His creations are orderly, and that He perceives what He creates to be good. Man, too, creates good orderly things, and uses language as part of the creative process. We teach chimps and gorillas to use language, but they are not, as far as I know, creative in the process.
The anthropological definition, alluded to by JTM, has to do with tools. Man is not the only creature to use tools; however, he is the only creature who uses tools to make tools. That is something that can be observed in archaelogical remains, and thus it serves as a good measure for anthropological definitions.
All of which is fascinating, and opens ideas--but I'm not sure any of it solves your orc problem, as I don't know that the people with whom you are having a similar discussion there would accept any of these ideas.
--M. J. Young
Sun Feb 15 2009 11:55 pm # -
JohnA1nut
MemberHonestly, sometimes I'm ashamed to be a human. When I was a kid, there were these guys that would follow me to school every day, doing all kinds of sadistic, evil things to me. Every day, I asked them the same question; "Why are you doing this to me?" and every day, I got the same answer; "Because you're a nerd!!" You don't see animals doing that kind of crap to each other.
Mon Feb 16 2009 1:09 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberTwo Posts
Humans are the only species that takes pleasure in hurting others for no reason. There was a guy I went to school with. He was in my study hall. We were talking, just mindless chat, and I made a comment that I didn't like to fight. That was all the provocation he needed. Every time I came to that study hall, he made it a point to make my time there miserable. He kept saying "I'm gonna kick your ass one of these days." And finally, he did. I was walking to school, and a car pulled up. He jumped out, came at me and said "Hey man, remember me? The guy that was gonna kick your ass?" Punched me in the ear, tried to steal my bag, hit me again, then got back in the car and left. He was laughing the whole time. I didn't even know his name. No provocation from me whatsoever. Just because he thought it was funny.
I never saw him again after that. I guess he dropped out of school or something. Thankfully.
We are the ONLY species on earth that does that.
Mon Feb 16 2009 8:43 am # -
Kurt W.
MemberI've read some works involving Social Darwinism which divides humans from the rest of the world, in a unique individualistic hive-structured society; however, this is not where I need to start, so I'll be back to this later.
Humans are different because we have enough mental capabilities to effect our own evolution. Humans started out as dumb brutes, moved to tribes, and eventually to civilizations of men and women, working together to make life easier for themselves (with help of others). This increases social trade in society, which puts a new stress on mankind. The stress changes evolution towards skills involving social interaction rather than just relying on strength to gain the materials to survive.
In my personal theory, education in America is the foundation for evolutionary manipulation. We're evolving to establish social contacts in school, and different castes to belong in. These castes war with one another on occasion, as in John's personal experience. This in no way justifies the abuse brought about by those individuals.
I'm not sure what I'm saying, but I can't think of anything else to say. I hope that this made sense--I'm not actually sure that I answered the question, except that we can manipulate our own evolutionary path.
Mon Feb 16 2009 8:37 pm # -
Tadeusz
MemberActually animals can be pointlessly cruel.
At one point in Krillis' verser career, he was trying to heal a verser who was in a coma. And so he visits the dream realm with Great Morpheus' help where he sees the verser yelling at herself, but herself not responding. This was a picture of a mind/spirit not being able to get the damaged body to respond kind of like how a damaged radio will not pick up a radio signal.
MJ also twice or was it thrice...turned into a rabbit which had effects on his thinking.
I think that the two are separated, but they communicate back and forth. Thus low blood sugar makes me feel lazy which is my body talking to my mind. And rage at injustice makes me want to clench my fists which is my mind talking to my body.
Mon Feb 16 2009 10:44 pm # -
All very usefull, thanks. And thankfully, more then three people in the discussion this time :). And almost all on different levels of distinction, which I like.
I was considering John's point of view, but decided that I'm not totally agreeing with that fatalistic view of humans as a tool of evil and destruction. Partly because of my relegious background which says that humans were created good, fell in sin, spoiling the goodness and gaining the taint of evil yet who are able to be redeemed back to the original design through Christ (the second Adam or something like that, as Paul calls Him. At least I think it was Paul). But also because I see that they are capable of much good. (A bit, but not totally, like the conclusion of 'The Day The Earth Stood Still')
Mark has made some good points on which I hadn't given much thought, but where I seemed to be going intuitively, except for the theological deviding thing. With the parts etc. But the abilities etc. The ability to be creative is very dear to me. (as it is one of my favorite occupations)
JTM was very practical, and completed by Mark.
Krillis makes a welcome addition coming from a side I'm not familiar with. Social Darwinism, saying that we can influence our own evolution. But I'm not quite sure what he means. Does he mean social evolution or psychic evolution or physical evolution?
And Eric adds to Mark's post, with the parts influencing each other.
Mon Feb 16 2009 11:34 pm # -
JohnA1nut
MemberI was considering John's point of view, but decided that I'm not totally agreeing with that fatalistic view of humans as a tool of evil and destruction.
Well, nothing is evil or good. It can be used for either evil or good. A fully automatic assault rifle, in the hands of a terrorist, can rain devastation down on people. The same assault rifle, in the hands of a soldier, can save people from that terrorist.
You have a newborn puppy, it's cute, it's cuddly. In the hands of a family with children, it will be a loving, welcomed member of the family, and will sacrifice its own life to protect them.
That same newborn puppy, in the hands of a person who trains attack dogs, will be a vicious killing machine.
Nothing is inherently evil or inherently good it's just made that way.
Is knowledge evil? Well, if knowledge is power, and power corrupts, then knowledge must corrupt. Or does it?
Tue Feb 17 2009 1:52 am # -
Kurt W.
MemberI just read about it in a Social Darwinism book. Let's put that word to the side, though.
My belief is that humans are able to decide their environments now, and able to adapt to them more readily than any other species. This makes it so that we can develope how we want to.
Example:
Half of the human race is low class people in poverty, cut off from high and middle class, with no government aid. They begin to be malnourished because they can't afford much food. Their children have stunted growth due to this and a couple centuries later, the lower class people are short.
The other half is high and middle class. They're able to buy nourishment and resources for luxury. Thus, they become larger and taller. Also, they can afford education, so they also have increased brain mass (perhaps).
This is just a general example. I don't think this would ever happen, though I think it could, a branch between our race as a whole.
IN SHORT TERM:
I believe that we can re-program ourselves. I've done this on occasion. I call it 'rewiring myself', but I'm sure there's some psychology term for it that I never learned. I did this after my first semester of college-I rewired my brain by thinking in a unique way, with the directive of giving myself a work ethic that I didn't have before.
I believe that all humans are able to do this-to change themselves at will on a personal, mental level. Usually humans don't want to do this, because what's current usually works. I've had this dilema as well. It's the same situation when you experience a tradgedy or extreme anger. You KNOW that you'll be better off making yourself calm down; however, in that state of mind, you really don't WANT to. It takes an extreme force of will to calm down. I also recently experienced this as well.
Tue Feb 17 2009 4:47 am # -
I first encountered the term Social Darwinism in Omni Magazine in the 80's. It is the view that our the structures of our society "evolve" in the sense that what works will be retained and what fails will vanish. I think that E. O. Wilson may have used the term in relation to his own studies. It applies to animals as much as to humans.
It has less to do with our core question, though, which is what makes us human. Certainly the structures of our society are part of that, but other creatures have social structures (Wilson pointed to bees, and we say the same among herd animals and pack animals).
--M. J. Young
Tue Feb 17 2009 5:15 am # -
People use language with recursive phrasal structure. (I'm pretty sure that excludes birds and non-human primates).
But really, the answer you get should depend on why you're asking. Sometimes, I would answer the question "what distinguishes people from animals" with "nothing, what are you talking about?"
Tue Feb 17 2009 5:33 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberBut really, the answer you get should depend on why you're asking. Sometimes, I would answer the question "what distinguishes people from animals" with "nothing, what are you talking about?"
No, the difference is that animals don't kill other animals because they have different colored fur. Animals don't torture each other just because an animal is "weird". Animals don't follow other animals to school tormenting them "because you're a nerd." Animals are WAY more civilized than we could EVER hope to be.
Tue Feb 17 2009 5:40 am # -
When I was in college, in one of my classes a text included a list of things that were unique to man. This was comprised of suggestions made by famous philosophers and theologians over the ages, because it was fundamental in early Greek philosophy that whatever was unique about an object defined its purpose, and since man was the only creature capable of reason, reasoning was the purpose of man.
One of the listed items said that man was the only creature perpetually in heat.
I don't know whether any of these things are true. I recently read somewhere that wolverines do kill, torture, and destroy for pleasure, and I think I've seen cats do it to small creatures and even to each other to a lesser degree.
John, you make too much of your experience on this. There are many things which potentially distinguish humans from animals, and the fact that you believe one to be true does not mean none of the others are. Indeed, Scott might be right, that from a certain point of view there is no difference. Most of our physiology is duplicated in other creatures, even though it is not duplicated in all other creatures. We have unique DNA, but then, we individually have unique DNA and so do many other creatures. Much of what we can claim as unique features of humankind can be found in other creatures--and we cannot be certain that the rest cannot be found in higher creatures (e.g., angelic beings). It may be that there is something unique about man; it may be that we can't really know what it is with any certainty.
--M. J. Young
Tue Feb 17 2009 5:47 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberOne of the listed items said that man was the only creature perpetually in heat.
Yeah, I saw this in a stand up comedy routine. "Can you imagine if people had a mating season? You think Christmas is a big holiday? IT'S MATING SEASON!!!!!!!!!!!!"
It probably doesn't read as funny as the comedian made it.......
Tue Feb 17 2009 6:01 am # -
It occurs to me that if a verser is asking this question, he's probably concerned what what makes him human, as opposed to something else, and is worried about "losing his humanity." If I was asked the question for this purposes, my response would probably be that humanity is cultural: if you were born and raised human, then you think and act human, and all the psionic mutation and cybernetic enhancement in the 'verse can't take that away from you.
But then, that's me and my character. I imagine Micheal DiVars (for instance) would answer differently.
Edit:
Well, it got a big smile from me. And I'll be sure to tell my players to thank you, later.It probably doesn't read as funny as the comedian made it.......
Tue Feb 17 2009 6:22 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberHumans are actually the most helpless animals on the planet. A newborn baby tiger has claws, and once its eyes open, it is capable of hunting. A newborn baby rattlesnake has venom and is capable of defending itself. A newborn baby human is one of the single most helpless creatures on earth. A great deal of animals abandon their young shortly after birth. A human would never survive.
Animals, for the most part, hunt with the tools they are given. Claws, teeth, speed, and superior senses. A human, equipped with only his claws and teeth wouldn't last very long in most places where animals can thrive.
The ONLY advantage that we have over most animals is that we do possess the ability to reason and think. The mind is our only advantage.
In one of the worlds, there's Cro Magnons and Homosapiens, IIRC. It is believed by some that the real-life Cro Magnon was the first species driven to extinction by the mentally superior Homosapiens. Cro Magnon was the Homosapiens' only real competitor for dominance. The mentally superior Homosapiens wiped out their distant cousins.
And Scott, why would your players thank me for making you smile? You're in a good mood, so you're going to treat them better or something?
Tue Feb 17 2009 8:25 am # -
I feel alot for the cultural aspect Scott provided. Animals living in groups don't have culture-styles. It's not that one termite-hill is built in one style and the other in another style. They might have a code of conduct, but that would be rather instinctive I guess.
Tue Feb 17 2009 9:26 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberYeah, that's something else I've been told. Humans are also the only creatures that are not born with instincts to do anything specific.
Sharks, instinct, kill something and eat it.
Ants, instinct, build tunnels
Humans, no such instincts. We do have the survival, and fight or flight, but every species has those. I meant the real instincts for some specific behavior pattern.
And Nikolaj, just an aside. "A lot" is two words, not one. Just trying to help you with your English, that's all.
Tue Feb 17 2009 9:40 am # -
Kurt W.
MemberI just don't think that reasoning and culture are the major differences between humans and animals. I'm not buying it.
I do like the concept of different parts of us (spirit, soul, body) talking to one another.
I admit that these are differences; however, I think that both of them stem from something deeper in man. I can't figure out what it is-I'm only human.
Tue Feb 17 2009 4:22 pm # -
JohnA1nut
MemberAnother thing unique to human behavior, (and this is something I learned in-game) is that we are the ONLY species that will kill each other over something which is, ultimately, completely useless. That thing is MONEY!!! Really, seriously, what practical thing can you do with money, besides start a campfire? As I told Nikolaj, I almost shot him in the head over a matter of $80,000 in my first world. Scott and I got into a huge battle over it. Even out of character, I was freaking out about it. I realized 2 worlds later how stupid that was though. Take away its monetary value, and it's just a colorful piece of paper, yet people kill each other for them.
Same with gold, silver, diamonds, etc. Really, what use do these have? Lead and gold are a scant one hydrogen atom off on the atomic scale. Why is the gold valuable and the lead worthless? From a standpoint of their practical, metallurgical use, the two are identical. However, the lead is worthless, and the gold is valuable.
It was an old Twilight Zone episode. Three or four guys rob a shipment of gold. But how not to get caught? They cryogenically suspend themselves for 100 years. Through the course of the episode, they kill each other, until only one of them remains. At the end, you find out that the human population has learned in the last 100 years how to manufacture gold, and it is worthless. They more or less killed each other over blocks of lead.
In the Terminator novel, Reese knows that money is valuable in the 1980s, and so robs the police that the Terminator killed in the police station gunfight. (In case you were wondering where he got that huge wad of cash) However, in his time, money was something they burned to keep warm at night.
If two animal species go to war, it's over things which are useful. Food, water, good hunting grounds, mates, etc. Humans are the ONLY species which kills each other over something which is, ultimately, completely worthless.
Tue Feb 17 2009 4:49 pm # -
From Krillis:
I just don't think that reasoning and culture are the major differences between humans and animals. I'm not buying it.
I don't think so either. I was illustrating a point about different interpretations of the question based on the objective of the person asking. And I didn't mean "humans have culture, animals don't," I meant "you are human-cultured, in the same way that an Egyptian might be Egyptian-cultured, so don't worry about 'losing your humanity' because you got a shiny metal arm; it's not your arm that makes you human any more than it's your arm that makes you Egyptian."
Wed Feb 18 2009 1:20 am # -
Interestingly, though, the context of Nikolaj's question is not whether he is still human, but whether the orcs in the world he is visiting are human, and whether he can prove that to the humans there.
It is a question with a moral dimension. No one there objects to riding horses or eating sheep--those are animals, not people. They also think that orcs are animals, not people, and their arguments to that effect highlight how orcs are different not only from humans but also from elves and dwarfs, who are in these regards more like humans and therefore also "people".
I think Nikolaj has determined that orcs are people (which is the way the scenario reads, I think), but he is dealing with the fact that the people who enslave them do not agree, and while they are all very nice about it he's not likely to persuade them to his viewpoint without coming to some basis for a definition of "people" which will be agreed by everyone there.
--M. J. Young
Wed Feb 18 2009 2:46 am # -
I like my first definition, then. The orcs have language, thus, people.
Wed Feb 18 2009 6:09 am # -
That's why I included "with recursively-defined phrasal structure" in my first definition. Lots of animals communicate with each other, with systems of varying complexity. Only people can recite The House that Jack Built.
(I admit that I'm cheating a little, trying to say that human language makes you human. I figure that if I can uniquely define human language without saying "human language" outright, I can get away with this.)
Wed Feb 18 2009 7:08 am # -
johnosevens
MemberI want to chime in on this, but I fear my answer might not make sense. I'll try to explain myself somewhat carefully. See, I'm not approaching this question from the perspective of "what makes us human" specifically, so much as, "what defines a sapient living creature" which is a subtly but significantly different angle. Where MJ is looking for a trichotomist or dichotomist approach, I'm going to take a transhumanist approach.
I think the answer is more complex than just "does it have a soul?". How can you tell? And is it only humans that have souls? What of elves? Or orcs? Or self-aware machines? We have to consider, in a very fundamental way, what we mean by "human." Are we really speaking of only our own race, homo sapiens sapiens, or are we taking a more philosophical tack and asking what makes something qualify as an intelligent life-form?
The answer to the first is purely biological. If an organism meets certain physical characteristics, it can be defined as a member of the species homo sapiens, and thus be considered "human."
The answer to the second is, I'm fairly certain, what we're getting at here. When you get right down to it, there are certain ways in which humans think, certain patterns of behavior that are recognizable as "human." While these might run a certain gamut, they are quantifiable in recognizable ways. People, in general, respect life, take care of themselves, perform work, demonstrate some measure of compassion, and so on.
We are horrified and offended by, for instance, mass murderers, because their behavior is "inhuman." They are still biologically human, but of a mindset so thoroughly different that it is not recognizable. We are taken aback by people who are willing to sacrifice huge swaths of their population in order to, for instance, improve quality of life for those who remain, because life is sacred and to sell life for comfort is "inhuman." It is within the realm of human possibility, obviously, but it is not normal, and we must define humanity by what is normal for humanity, or else we could say that any sort of behavior is technically human behavior because people do so many odd things.Therefore I propose that, leaving all religious influence aside, humanity is not a biological state, it is not a spiritual state, it is a mental state. It is possible to be biologically human without having a recognizably Human mindset. It is possible to have a Human mindset without being biologically human (consider, for instance, Robin Williams' character Andrew in "Bicentennial Man", Brent Spiner's character Data in "Star Trek: The Next Generation", or the character Jane in Orson Scott Card's "Ender" saga). So we cannot say that membership in the human species is the only important thing; we must consider what behavioral and mental constructs are characteristic of humanity as well.
So, no, your metal arm does not make you less human just because less of your body is home-grown homo sapiens. It makes you less human if-and-only-if having it implanted makes you think less like a human being. In ShadowRun they call it "cyberpsychosis," a sort of mental drift that occurs as more of your body is taken over with machines. You start to care less about things, take less care of yourself, become more irrational, more mindlessly violent, and so on. If that sort of thing isn't happening to you, you're still human.
And that brings me to my last point about humanity: mortality. Mortality is a fundamental aspect of humanity, one that is increasingly overlooked in modern treatments of the subject of immortality. Humans have a certain mindset based on improving themselves, or improving their lot in life, or just sitting around waiting to die, all based on the certain knowledge that death is coming. When you remove that fear - as vampires do, as certain ascendent heros do, as Versers do - you set yourself up for an increasingly inhuman mindset. Why value people, when you will live through and outlive so many of them? Why value things, when even the bones of mighty Rome now lay as dust? Why value yourself, when death simply means starting over again?
I feel that a person cannot live forever without being changed by it. Anne Rice is among the worst offenders for this: her vampires live for hundreds or thousands of years and change... not at all. After 200 years of life, Lestat and whats-his-name are the same drunken, hedonistic, debauched losers they were in the Colonies. That sort of thing is just... not right. You don't live for 200 years and learn nothing from the experience. Changing over time, and having a limited time to change in, are both necessary parts of humanity.Fri Feb 20 2009 6:43 pm # -
Well said, but then we come to morality, which the currently favored post-modern mindset trivializes. Some, or most of the current people or at least those who write books on the subject, try to get loose from it. And it has had it's effect. Life is treated with less respect, as you have said would be the consequence.
The mental thing is part of what I'm after I think. The morality too, but with orcs vs humans it would be like the seemingly different morals between Victorians and the native inhabitants of the Congo or some other African land. Due too culture, that respect for life has been expressed differently. As is the case in my game, where having multiple wives has been given as an argument for the orcs not being 'human' or not being persons. As well as the cannibalism.
Fri Feb 20 2009 8:13 pm # -
Right now I'm watching this movie called 'the Missing'.
There is this doctor woman who relly doesn't like indians. Yet she has to operate one at one point. Her father, a western man who adopted the ways of the indians answers her sarcasticly. "They have green blood and a pinecone for a hearth." He indicates that there actually isn't a difference.Fri Feb 20 2009 9:59 pm # -
johnosevens
MemberPlenty of people have multiple wives, or are allowed to have multiple wives. Some Mormons. Some Muslims. The Emperor of Japan. It's not common any more, but that doesn't make it inhuman.
Even cannibalism, depending on how you look at. This is one of those odd things that depends entirely on the context. If you intend it to show cruelty and frighten your enemies, then that's a bit sick and borders on the truly inhuman. Likewise if you eat your own people simply because they're tasty (which, while it might make sense in the context of a given society, is probably not a human society).
On the other hand, it's easy to see how, in the right cultural context, certain kinds of cannibalism (eating the heart of a worthy opponent, for instance) could be seen as a sign of respect, even high praise in some circumstances ("Old Zicnaw has killed over a hundred men, but he hasn't eaten a heart in thirty years, until today. Your champion must have done something ... special...").Personally, when I think of orcs I think of them in the typical D&D way. Dumb, ugly, slobbering barbarians who exist only to fight and make trouble for everybody else. But they don't necessarily have to be that way. Inherently, they might not qualify as homo sapiens biologically (Shadowrun refers to them as homo sapiens robustus, but in Shadowrun everybody used to be human) but they are not more "inhuman" than, say, elves or dwarves or Vulcans - which is to say, they're close enough.
Edit: Nikolaj, is the heart of what you're stabbing at... not so much the question of what separates a human being from other sapient races, so much as what qualifies a race as being sapient in the first place, as opposed to being just animals?
Fri Feb 20 2009 10:43 pm # -
JohnA1nut
MemberRegarding cannibalism and mass murder, in the proper context, neither of those is necessarily "inhuman" behavior. In one of the old Star Trek episodes, Kirk was sent to arrest Emperor Kodos. He was regarded as an Adolf Hitler style dictator, who had murdered millions of his own people. Later, you find out that the reason he did it was because the food supplies were dwindling. He had killed the older and sick people, so that the food would last long enough for those that were healthy to have a chance. However, when the supply ships showed up, much earlier than expected, Kodos was put on trial. Is it necessarily wrong to kill so that others might live? If my death meant that my older brother would survive, I would gladly make that sacrifice, and I'd like to think that he would do the same for me.
Likewise, cannibalism. In 1972, a Uruguayan rugby team got stranded in the Andes mountains. The only way the survivors of the crash could live was to cannibalize those who had died. There was a popular bumper sticker at the time "Rugby players eat their dead." I would perform the act of cannibalism if there was no other alternative. "Once the soul has left the body, then the body is just a carcass." I believe it should be treated as such.
Would you steal? Would you murder? Would you commit unspeakable acts of cruelty? Your human mind says "Of course not." However, if you were hungry enough, there could potentially be no limit to the atrocities you could be capable of performing.
Sat Feb 21 2009 3:16 am # -
@johnosevens: The last one, what makes them a person, rather than a member of the human race. Again you gave some excellent points. I had thought about them myself, yet the character who discussed with my character saw those as flaws, not me. I have about the same view of it as you have.
@johnA1nut: Good point! Yet you deide it's you that would be sacrificed. f you would say that your brother should be sacrificed because of your need to survive, that might lead to another conclusion.
That Emperor Kudos guy seemed to have to make a hard choice. And he made a choice, a choise that had to be made. Should he let everyone starve or let a part of the crew survive by killing of the rest. Yet Hitler decided to just 'purify' the human race, and saw some humans as not human at all and lower then the animals. (btw, that was based on the evolution theory, assuming that animals and human beings are not different at all)
Sat Feb 21 2009 9:27 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberWhat Hitler did was wrong. However, in the case of the fictional Emperor Kodos, that was the only way to save millions of lives. Or so he thought. Kodos was regarded as a barbarian and killer because the supply ship came early. If it hadn't, he might have been regarded as a hero for saving half of the population, as opposed to letting everyone starve. In the right context, just about any behavior can be justified.
MJ said that there's no way he could be brought to kill his wife. He also says that he's skeptical of what people say they would do in a situation they have never faced. Kind of contradicting himself there. If killing his wife was the only way to save his 5 sons, I'm sure he would make that tough choice. I hope no one ever has to make a choice like that, least of all MJ, but until you're in the situation, you don't know what you would do. If you asked Fernando Perrado (the leader of the Uruguayan rugby team) a week before they crashed if he would ever perform cannibalism, I'm sure he would have adamantly said no. However, in the real situation, he was one of the first people to suggest it as a means of survival.
Sat Feb 21 2009 9:37 am # -
Scott wrote:
I like my first definition, then. The orcs have language, thus, people.
I like that, too--but let me throw a spanner in the works for you, Scott. In this scenario, but currently outside Nikolaj's knowledge, the elves converse with their trees, and probably with their other animals (although I haven't actually done anything with that). Does the fact that these other "creatures" can converse, albeit only when the other participant uses magic, influence your argument at all?Harry wrote:
When you get right down to it, there are certain ways in which humans think, certain patterns of behavior that are recognizable as "human." While these might run a certain gamut, they are quantifiable in recognizable ways.
Ah, but is this not exactly the argument being made by the humans in Nikolaj's world, that orcs are not "people" because they do not act or think like "people"? They are polygamous, a practice rejected by all the "peoples". They will eat other people, which other people consider cannibalism but orcs do not if they are not eating orcs--but sometimes they might eat other orcs, as far as the humans know. They are polytheists, or at best henotheists, and not monotheists like all the civilized "people". If the question is whether a creature acts "human" or "inhuman" as you define it, then does it not become a relative issue? The orc could be more like the chimp or the gorilla or the wolf or the pig than like the human or the elf or the dwarf, based on observed conduct. Does your argument embrace orcs as people, or not? Or is it still as fuzzy as it appears to me?And although certainly you can argue that these "immoral" "abberations" have been normal for some humans in our world, Nikolaj has no evidence that they were ever so in that world.
Ultimately, Nikolaj is trying to determine for himself, and even more so prove to others, that the orcs of that world are not different in kind from the elves, humans, and dwarfs, despite their serious differences in knowledge and practice. They do not "know" the things the civilized world knows, and they do not act like the civilized people. They do not own land. They are not monogamous, and they are not monotheistic. They eat other races. They are, from the perspective of the humans, elves, and dwarfs, animals. Like dogs and horses, they can be trained; like goats, sheep, and cows, they can be subdued. Is there anything that demonstrates they are equal to the other people, despite the fact that they are more primitive and culturally very different?
--M. J. Young
Sun Feb 22 2009 12:55 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberIs there anything that demonstrates they are equal to the other people, despite the fact that they are more primitive and culturally very different?
The African bushmen are more primitive and culturally very different from us, but are they any less human? They eat chimpanzees. Some people believe that chimps are lesser-evolved humans, does that make the African bushmen cannibals? I personally say no on both counts, although someone else might disagree with me.
Sun Feb 22 2009 1:16 am # -
johnosevens
MemberMJ - I see what you're saying when you talk about how their conduct is different. To answer your question: I'm arguing that it is most probable that the orcs are more akin to humans and elves than to the so-called "lower" animals.
Yes, the concept of personhood as we are trying to define it is, necessarily, relative. We have only our own perspective to go by. For all we know, our cats don't necessarily think of us as "civilized." After all, we are easily trained, good servants, docile, useful, and we do behave fairly strangely... from the perspective of a cat. What we have to get at is not an absolute sense of what personhood is, but what we can perceive in a given race (like orcs) that will allow us to see them as persons rather than as animals (this is not so far-fetched a thing to say when you consider that some people think of dolphins and chimps as "people").
Sun Feb 22 2009 4:04 am # -
John, that does not really answer the question, because the question is not really whether orcs are "human" in exactly the same sense that humans are, but whether they are "people" in the same sense that humans are, which is also the same sense that elves and dwarfs are. Elves are not humans, they're elves; Dwarfs are not human, they're dwarfs. Yet elves, dwarfs, and humans are all "civilized people", and, by some unexpressed definition, orcs are not. Nikolaj wants to say that orcs are people, too. To do so, he must either
- Get the unexpressed definition expressed in specific terms and show that under those terms orcs are included; or
- Change the unexpressed definition such that it also covers orcs.
Incidentally, no one has ever succeeded in doing that in this scenario, although I can't say that anyone took it as his genuine objective. I don't know that Nikolaj will attempt it, and I don't know how it will play out if he does--but that's why it's an interesting world, isn't it?
--M. J. Young
Mon Feb 23 2009 12:16 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberYeah MJ, I know exactly what you're talking about. Two hundred years ago, they said "They're not people, they're Negroes" and so slavery happened. 70 years ago, they said "They're not people, they're Jews" and we had the Holocaust. Today, it's "They're not people, they're fetuses" and we have abortions.
By a loose definition, fire could be considered to be a living organism. It grows, eats fuel, and is capable of reproducing. Is fire alive? Are orcs people? What defines people? I guess that's the whole point we're trying to establish, isn't it?
Tue Feb 24 2009 1:35 am # -
johnosevens
MemberPretty much.
Also today it's "they're not people, they're just kids," and we have... well... a whole host of things I am morally offended by, but not relevant to this discussion. You have my email if you want to go there.
And I've heard the fire thing argued before.
Basically, go watch an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation entitled "The Measure of a Man," in which Data proves he is alive. If you think your orcs could pass that trial... go right ahead.Tue Feb 24 2009 4:21 am #
Reply »
You must log in to post.