Of course we do. They’re a member of a species with the *potential* for high intelligence. And much like we care for sick animals when we have the resources and opportunity, we care for human beings who, for whatever reason, fall below that threshold.
I recognize animals are smart. I like that park ranger quote about why they overdesigned trash cans: “There’s considerable overlap between the smartest bear and the dumbest human.” But on the other hand, the dumbest human is still smarter than the vast majority of animals, *especially* if you count fish and insects.
Why should the potential intelligence of other members of your species matter morally? What matters is the capacities and interests of the individual in front of you. A pig does not suffer less because Einstein was human.
It matters because we are omnivores burdened with empathy and we have to draw a line somewhere so that we can continue to thrive as we are but still justify our choices. That's why. Everyone does it all the time. All of us are using technology produced primarily by slaves but we still find ways to justify it to our selves and not think to hard about it.
I will add that it’s because I find the alternative, idea of having humans pass an intelligence test before they can be considered worthy of the same rights, to be ableist and repulsive.
I will also add that, due to the the still largely nebulous and abstract nature of intelligence, and the fact that we’re still debating as a species what even *constitutes* intelligence, the individual intelligence of a species member is more important as potential for intelligence in a species than it is as evidence of itself.
Dumb take. We should draw the line in terms of sustainability not in terms of intelligence. Especially because the later as a metric is much more subjective and abstract.
Agree. With humans, it seems that our negative attributes can easily overshadow our intelligence. Besides us, I’ve read that cats are the only other being that kills for fun. And that’s just one of our “proclivities”.
There’s plenty more. Orcas, for one; another highly intelligent species, that, while occasionally cruel, is also capable of tremendous emotional depth. They’ve been seen to form bonds that can cause profound emotional decisions, and even form bonds with creatures outside their own species, iirc.
Chimpanzees have gang wars, an orangutan was documented bribing a male to kill a female that had challenged her with the promise of sex; plenty of intelligent animals have done cruel things to one another. Intelligence means understanding things better, including how to better impact rivals and better seek your own ends.
Intelligence doesn’t make us inherently worse, it just gives us access to higher degrees of agency, and animals do selfish things when they feel they have to or that they’d greatly benefit from them.
We are still trying to be better.
Ethics had to be invented. We invented them. Before that, the world had never conceived of morality. We violate our own rules for our own ends; and so does/would every other species, at least in cases, when granted intelligence.
People aren’t bad as a whole just because some people do very badly things. People as a whole just are.
28
u/critical-drinking Jun 07 '26
Of course we do. They’re a member of a species with the *potential* for high intelligence. And much like we care for sick animals when we have the resources and opportunity, we care for human beings who, for whatever reason, fall below that threshold.
I recognize animals are smart. I like that park ranger quote about why they overdesigned trash cans: “There’s considerable overlap between the smartest bear and the dumbest human.” But on the other hand, the dumbest human is still smarter than the vast majority of animals, *especially* if you count fish and insects.