But seriously, the man who was once a free trader and later became a protectionist, and who was still recently presumably a pro-worker, pro-industry, (pro-human-civilization maybe) is now a man concerned for animal rights and the environment.
It’s not concern for animals that is surprising (it is very typical of any decent human), but that he has reached the same conclusion that many environmentalists eventually reach.
That’s what surprised me. This conclusion is the exact one that many radical environmentalists reach, who feel that man is an alien presence who has brought nothing but ill to this world and perhaps does not deserve to survive. I am not saying PCR may be that far already, but he has shown the first tiny vestige of that feeling.
You see, while his fellow conservative Joe Sobran (who often wrote for the exact same publications) often posited that man is a superior creature ordained on this earth by the Christian God himself, and who reflects more thought and virtue than a beast, PCR may be moving away from this particular stance of conservatives.
What do you say Mises.Org? Is man the most evil or the most benevolent animal on this earth? Or is he no better or worse than any animal?
On this issue there is one thing that so far as we know is unique to man; standards of behavior and internal criticism amongst ourselves of behavior deemed sub par or ‘evil’. When bears have a glut of food we don’t see them treating the salmon better, same for lions and their prey. Humans try to impove themselves in the present and with an eye to the future too. With that in mind, while there is evil and many of us engage in it to some degree, that we are able to improve and try to do so at least differentiates us from other animals, and perhaps makes us ‘better’ than they are.
I any event it is flat out wrong to think of humans as existing outside of the natural order. We are as much a part and product of nature as any other animal, and that’s true whether God put us here or we’re just really smart hairless apes.
The main difference between humans and other animals is we’ve bypassed the need for physically evolving, and simply evolving through our own concepts. Instead of having a more efficient body, we can think, do you see other animals with a market place? Factories? Technology? Some may have something, but nothing so complex.
But we are still animals. We still eat, reproduce and die. We still have needs, insecurities and uncertainities. The difference is we are very aware.
humans are animals just with funny ambiguous concepts like “evil”, “good” and so on. Just because we notice “evil” doesn’t meant that it exists in objective reality. We create meaning for evil, so to speak. Evil exists only in human world. Not in animal kingdom (now I am making a distinction here).
I daresay Mr. Roberts is committing the fallacy of reification here. He’s implying that “evil” is a thing that can exist outside of our minds. However, “evil” is a valuation that we (can) impute to things.
Without the presence of mankind, there would be no evil or good on the planet.
Objectively speaking, he’s no better or worse than any animal, because “better” and “worse” are subjective. But subjectively speaking, I like man better than any other animal.
Strictly speaking, this isn’t true. Humans are still physically evolving. If your kids aren’t clones of you (and they aren’t), that’s physical evolution at work.
I completely agree except for the bit about “noticing ‘evil’”. If “evil” exists only in our minds, we can’t “notice” it – i.e., perceive it from the outside world.
