GodOfOrder
Well-Known Member
Before I begin, may I say that this post will be controversial, and may bring some to tears and others to froth at mouth. If it does either, forgive me. May I also say, that it seems as if it could fit under multiple different forum sections, among which are philosophy, spirituality, and human relationships... perhaps even the oubliette. Depending on the nature of the ensuing dialogue, or on the content of this OP it may be moved at the mods discretion.
Recently, a man died. I have never known this man, and have only heard of him. This being said, he was close to members of my immediate friends and family. He was also mentally impaired, and had an exceptionally low IQ. He possessed the mental capacity of a small child, if even.
The man was cared for by his mother until his death at age 70. The mother is 90 years old, and has spent the majority of her life attending to him. Considering his mental capacity, he seems to me to be more analogous to a house pet than a person; if not a rather remarkable house pet. However, I suppose the real question one would ask to determine that would be something along the lines of "Can he recognize other human beings, as he recognizes himself?" This is to say can he comprehend the fact that others may have thoughts and information, and can he conceive of more than that which is his own perspective. Has he the capacity?
If the answer is yes, I can only postulate that his existence was endlessly torturous. This would mean that he could watch his siblings move up and out, and see that he was limited. It would mean understanding, by virtue of his own mental abilities, that he was inferior. It would be like staring up at the light at the top of the cave, and knowing that it shall never reach you. And as you sit at the bottom of the cave, those around you are unshackled and moving upward; and no matter ho hard they try to save you, your chains remain permanently fixed and unbroken.
If the answer is no, than one would be less than a child. One would be permanently ignorant of all but one's most immediate surroundings, and be incapable of higher thought and conceptualization. It is true that all humans are born this way. We remain this way until around the ages of three to five. But the difference between the child and the impaired man is that there is potential for the child to advance, and graduate to higher forms of thought.
Barring the concept of a soul, the definition of a human seems to be centered on thought. Cognition, consciousness, and all of those wonderful things seem to be all important. The mere fact that one may possess a physical body does not seem to matter. A doll or a mannequin is not human. So, simply because one was born in a human body, does that make them human?
Upon the man's death, the family understandably fell into grief. Regardless of his alleged humanity, which I contest, this seems reasonable. The fact that man was mentally feeble does not mean that he could not feel. It also does not mean that he did not bring love and satisfaction to those who knew him. But these facts alone do not differentiate him from any dog I have ever known. Quite often, people grieve their dogs, and I have found that many grieve more for them than they do for other people.
But why is it offensive to question his humanity? If he lacks higher cognition, and awareness of others, we can't call him our equal. I also would like to point out, that I do not imply that he should have been treated badly or with distain. He, presumably had feelings. I observe that my own pets have feelings. And as any pet or living creature should be treated with dignity, so should any who are impaired. This treatment is not in itself reliant on the concept of a soul or of humanity, but merely upon recognition of other's capacity to feel.
Recently, a man died. I have never known this man, and have only heard of him. This being said, he was close to members of my immediate friends and family. He was also mentally impaired, and had an exceptionally low IQ. He possessed the mental capacity of a small child, if even.
The man was cared for by his mother until his death at age 70. The mother is 90 years old, and has spent the majority of her life attending to him. Considering his mental capacity, he seems to me to be more analogous to a house pet than a person; if not a rather remarkable house pet. However, I suppose the real question one would ask to determine that would be something along the lines of "Can he recognize other human beings, as he recognizes himself?" This is to say can he comprehend the fact that others may have thoughts and information, and can he conceive of more than that which is his own perspective. Has he the capacity?
Or to put it in a different way, consider this problem:
Susie and Sally share a room. In this room there is a box, which belongs to Susie, and a basket which belongs to Sally. Susie has a cookie, which she hides in her box. Sally, without Susie's knowledge, takes the cookie and puts it in her own box. When Susie comes back to get her cookie, will she check the box or the basket?
An outside observer who has awareness of these events, and the aforementioned higher thought- "comprehend the fact that others may have thoughts and information, and can conceive of more than that which is one's own perspective"- would answer that Susie would check her own box, because that is where Susie thinks the cookie is. One who lacks this understanding, would only understand that the cookie is in the basket. Thus they would presume that when trying to get the cookie, that Susie would go to the basket, because that is where the cookie is.
Apes, and young human children, typically answer in the latter way. They do not possess that higher level of cognition or awareness.
Susie and Sally share a room. In this room there is a box, which belongs to Susie, and a basket which belongs to Sally. Susie has a cookie, which she hides in her box. Sally, without Susie's knowledge, takes the cookie and puts it in her own box. When Susie comes back to get her cookie, will she check the box or the basket?
An outside observer who has awareness of these events, and the aforementioned higher thought- "comprehend the fact that others may have thoughts and information, and can conceive of more than that which is one's own perspective"- would answer that Susie would check her own box, because that is where Susie thinks the cookie is. One who lacks this understanding, would only understand that the cookie is in the basket. Thus they would presume that when trying to get the cookie, that Susie would go to the basket, because that is where the cookie is.
Apes, and young human children, typically answer in the latter way. They do not possess that higher level of cognition or awareness.
If the answer is yes, I can only postulate that his existence was endlessly torturous. This would mean that he could watch his siblings move up and out, and see that he was limited. It would mean understanding, by virtue of his own mental abilities, that he was inferior. It would be like staring up at the light at the top of the cave, and knowing that it shall never reach you. And as you sit at the bottom of the cave, those around you are unshackled and moving upward; and no matter ho hard they try to save you, your chains remain permanently fixed and unbroken.
If the answer is no, than one would be less than a child. One would be permanently ignorant of all but one's most immediate surroundings, and be incapable of higher thought and conceptualization. It is true that all humans are born this way. We remain this way until around the ages of three to five. But the difference between the child and the impaired man is that there is potential for the child to advance, and graduate to higher forms of thought.
(For sake of clarity, the possession of this type of thought is much different than the sentiment that it is treated with. For example, a psychopath or sociopath may recognize that other people have thoughts or feelings. They understand that others have information that they don't. Thus, their patterns of thought are sophisticated, and they use this knowledge to their advantage. They simply do not care about the feelings of these other people, and have no qualms about the moral implications of treating them badly. They may also learn from punishment, though this is a practical consideration, not a moral one.)
Barring the concept of a soul, the definition of a human seems to be centered on thought. Cognition, consciousness, and all of those wonderful things seem to be all important. The mere fact that one may possess a physical body does not seem to matter. A doll or a mannequin is not human. So, simply because one was born in a human body, does that make them human?
Upon the man's death, the family understandably fell into grief. Regardless of his alleged humanity, which I contest, this seems reasonable. The fact that man was mentally feeble does not mean that he could not feel. It also does not mean that he did not bring love and satisfaction to those who knew him. But these facts alone do not differentiate him from any dog I have ever known. Quite often, people grieve their dogs, and I have found that many grieve more for them than they do for other people.
But why is it offensive to question his humanity? If he lacks higher cognition, and awareness of others, we can't call him our equal. I also would like to point out, that I do not imply that he should have been treated badly or with distain. He, presumably had feelings. I observe that my own pets have feelings. And as any pet or living creature should be treated with dignity, so should any who are impaired. This treatment is not in itself reliant on the concept of a soul or of humanity, but merely upon recognition of other's capacity to feel.
