- Here you go:

I don't know of any other species which uses language, composes poetry, mathematizes the physical universe, develops vehicles to fly around within the atmosphere and even beyond, develops traditions which last for thousands of years and span civilizational epochs, and worships God. If humans aren't special then I don't know what is. — Leontiskos

Sure, we could call humans 'special' but that's somewhat arbitrary. Tuataras are the only beaked reptile in the world. And also a near-dinosaur. We could call any specie special. — AmadeusD

What is your definition of "special"? I don't think it's arbitrary at all. I think I am adhering to the definition of 'special' and you are not. — Leontiskos

The definition of special is "better, greater, or otherwise different from what is usual." — AmadeusD

Both of those quotes from you seem to imply that humans are special. Your definition seems to apply especially to humans, given the considerations I listed.

And your reasoning doesn't make much sense:

• Leontiskos: "I don't know of any other species which..."
• AmadeusD: "Sure, we could call humans 'special' but that's somewhat arbitrary. [...] We could call any specie special."

I literally explained how humans are different from every other species, and you responded by saying that "we could call any species special" along with, "The definition of special is [...] otherwise different from what is usual." Not only do humans adhere to the definition you have provided, but you simply ignored the fact that I gave reasons why humans are different from every other species (and therefore we simply can't "call any species special" in the way I called humans special - humans are especially special). So yeah, I don't get the sense that you're trying very hard in this thread.

Norms are derived
— Hanover

No. The significant differences between humans and other animals are not merely "derived" or "social constructs." Why not live in reality for a few minutes? — Leontiskos

I referenced norms, not differences. Holding the door for the person behind me is a norm where I live, but not so up north. That's socially derived. If you're saying that people have hands and dogs have paws, I think we're in agreement, but surely you couldn't have thought I didn't know that.

I'm not sure where this "moral worth" is coming from? Do you take "special" to mean "having moral worth"? And surely "moral" is another undefinable Moorean term, no? — Leontiskos

We're talking past each other if you've missed this. I have all along consistently said that ability does not equate to worth. If all you're saying is that "special" means "different," then this conversation amounts to just itemizing the differences between two things. I already said that in my reference to what an anthropologist might note, all of which I'd agree with. "Special" connotes a positive attribute, which is why we're asking why a person is special. If special just means different, then we can say what is so special about cars versus trucks or whatever. Is that what we're talking about?

What I mean by special includes the concept of norm governed behavior surrounding the thing. That is, we can break a glass, but not kill a person. The specialness of the person demands it be treated differently and the social response to the behavior shows how the thing is considered.

I'm not sure where this "moral worth" is coming from? Do you take "special" to mean "having moral worth"? And surely "moral" is another undefinable Moorean term, no? — Leontiskos

I've been pretty openly attaching your specialness to moral worth. That's now been clarified. To the extent you were talking about something different, now you know.

Again, this is a rather silly denial of final causality. If you don't understand that human babies naturally grow into human adults, then I'm not sure what to tell you. — Leontiskos

Do you think I have difficulty in understanding that most infants grow to adults or that every adult was once an infant? Probably not, which means you must not be understanding me. I can take blame for not being clear, but I don't think you can believe that to be a reasonable interpretation of what I've said.

What I'm saying is that what makes a person special or not is what that person has within him that makes him special. It's a specific attribute of the entity. Your position is that the specialness derives from ancestory. That is, because human consciousness is "special," all humans are special even if a particular example of a human is not. For example, if being able to run an ultra-marathon is unique to humans, and I believe that makes them special, I am special even though I can barely run a 5k. Just for the fact that my kin is special, so am I. That's a tenable position I suppose if that's how you want to define special, but that's not how I define it. I require something inherent within the actual entity to designate it special.

My position isn't fully accepted within modern society? Is that supposed to be a rebuttal? Is yours? I am continually amazed at how bad the reasoning on TPF is. — Leontiskos

If you provide a definition of a term (here "special"), the test for its accuracy is by application to examples. My point was that your definition does not hold when applied.

The people saying, "It's so because we decreed it," are precisely the generation that is laughed at by the next after they abandon the arbitrary decrees. It's painful to watch the older generations justify their obsolescence. — Leontiskos

Regardless of generation, there will be axioms, first principles we adhere to. That is required, and we can root them in whatever we want, some strained logical rationale as you are attempting, in the eternal, or just declare them so. The centering of humanity as the object of moral worth doesn't strike me as a fleeting moral principle. If it is, I really don't think your specialness theory is going to save mankind.

You've introduced this new concept of "moral worth" into the conversation as if it was there all along, and you will doubtless confess that you have no idea what you mean by that term. *Sigh* — Leontiskos

Let's look at use. I break a glass: I sweep it up. I murder a man: sirens, helicopters, dogs, questions, evidence gathered, lab tests, prosecutors, judges, juries, etc. Why are people "special"? Why isn't the dead guy just swept up? You can pretend it has nothing to do with their moral worth, but you'd be wrong.

Both of those quotes from you seem to imply that humans are special. — Leontiskos

They pretty obviously do not. If that was your interpretation, I am telling you: No. That is not what I said, intimated or meant. I was clearly making a quip about your incorrect use of 'special'. This is made explicitly clear by my actually giving the definition of the word 'special' and noting it does not, in any way, apply to humans or babies. I reiterated that multiple times. I am having a hard time now wanting to continue because it seems as if you're not clearly reading.

Not only do humans adhere to the definition you have provided — Leontiskos

They do not, in any way, adhere to that definition. If this is the basis for your argument, it is wholly rejected on first principle grounds. I cannot see how you have overcome this clear error. I suggest it is your theological bent that has you thinking this. If I am wrong, then I simply think you're making up a benchmark for the definition that doesn't make any sense. That is a disagreement, not something that can be resolved by 'reason'.

but you simply ignored the fact that I gave reasons why humans are different from every other species (and therefore we simply can't "call any species special" in the way I called humans special - humans are especially special). So yeah, I don't get the sense that you're trying very hard in this thread. — Leontiskos

If you could perhaps restate them - I have been pretty clear that no reasons have emerged from your posts. If you think they have, explicitly state them. It appears that your only argument is 'they are human' .which is an obvious tautology.

You've not acknowledge any of the clear mistakes you've made or any anything else of substance, yet you're claim is i'm not 'trying very hard'?? Good lord - If anything, you're not doing any work to have me understand you here mate. Its becoming tedious again.

You seem to be going on the assumption that society acts in perfectly rational ways and so why aren't they making the perfectly rational designation to devalue childbirth for the good of the greater society. — unimportant

Forgive me, because I get this will be annoying - i have no idea where this has come from. Nothing I said seems to indicate anything about my thinking on 'society' behaving rationally?

I did no such thing, And i outright reject the notion that humans are special. I asked you for your evaluation with reasons. You have not done so — AmadeusD

This searches for a metaphysical distinction that can't be spoken, yet usage clearly dictates you're in error. What follows the murder of a person (police, investigation, trial, prison, etc) differs substantially from what follows the breaking of a glass (sweeping the shards away). You say there is nothing underlying special about the person, yet he's treated as so special. What do propose could be referred to prove the specialness exists outside our use of the term? If there is nothing that can be pointed to, then you're not saying humans are not special, but that "special" has no meaning. If that is the case, then why do I know what you mean when I say humans are special and glasses aren't.

Tell me what you need to see for specialness to be proven, not just that you don't have proof. I tend to think there is nothing there you want pointed at.

That means that my statement that people are special in a metaphysical way isn't vacuous, but that it exists yet can't be referenced.

I referenced norms, not differences. Holding the door for the person behind me is a norm where I live, but not so up north. That's socially derived. If you're saying that people have hands and dogs have paws, I think we're in agreement, but surely you couldn't have thought I didn't know that. — Hanover

But what does talk of norms have to do with the thread, or my claims? Why are you suddenly talking about norms?

We're talking past each other if you've missed this. I have all along consistently said that ability does not equate to worth. If all you're saying is that "special" means "different," then this conversation amounts to just itemizing the differences between two things. I already said that in my reference to what an anthropologist might note, all of which I'd agree with. "Special" connotes a positive attribute, which is why we're asking why a person is special. If special just means different, then we can say what is so special about cars versus trucks or whatever. Is that what we're talking about?

What I mean by special includes the concept of norm governed behavior surrounding the thing. That is, we can break a glass, but not kill a person. The specialness of the person demands it be treated differently and the social response to the behavior shows how the thing is considered. — Hanover

Okay, that is helpful. It sounds like you want, "The baby is special," to mean something like, "The baby has value." Still, I don't see how this functions in relation to my argument. The special nature of the human being that I outlined also brings with it a specific kind of value.

I've been pretty openly attaching your specialness to moral worth. — Hanover

"Moral" doesn't appear very often in this thread. It does appear in the OP, but only in the claim that what is being spoken about is not a moral attribute. So if you think the thread is about "moral worth" then I think the OP itself should correct that misunderstanding.

Do you think I have difficulty in understanding that most infants grow to adults or that every adult was once an infant? — Hanover

That you've again misconstrued the position proves my point. We are talking about a telos of human babies, not "what mostly happens." If you actually understood what was being said, then your claim that it only "mostly happens" would entail that human babies sometimes grow into adult giraffes or oak trees or something other than mature humans.

Your position is that the specialness derives from ancestory. — Hanover

Nope. "Human babies naturally grow into human adults," does not come to, "The specialness of human babies derives from ancestry."

Just for the fact that my kin is special, so am I. — Hanover

No, that's not even close.

I require something inherent within the actual entity to designate it special. — Hanover

Again, you deny final causality.

Let's pretend that the special-making quality of human beings has to do with their speaking of the Spanish language. I might say, "Humans are special because they can speak the Spanish language." Your rejoinder in this thread would be, "On that reasoning, only Spanish-speakers are special, and that's absurd." Or else, on this new reading, it has something to do with ancestry or kinship with Spanish speakers, but I don't know how to make sense of such a thing.

When evaluating a particular human being, you restrict yourself to what they currently possess. If they do not currently possess the ability to speak Spanish, then you will say they are not special. I do not restrict myself in that way. I am talking about human potencies, not human acts (energeia). I am saying that a human is special because they have the ability to speak Spanish, whether or not they currently exercise that ability. I think a thing can be special in virtue of potencies that it does not currently possess; you do not. You refuse to talk about a potency that the individual does not currently possess. That's the difference.

Regardless of generation, there will be axioms, first principles we adhere to. That is required, and we can root them in whatever we want — Hanover

But you're equivocating. An axiom and a first principle are two different things, and axioms are by definition not "rooted" in anything.

Let's look at use. I break a glass: I sweep it up. I murder a man: sirens, helicopters, dogs, questions, evidence gathered, lab tests, prosecutors, judges, juries, etc. Why are people "special"? Why isn't the dead guy just swept up? You can pretend it has nothing to do with their moral worth, but you'd be wrong. — Hanover

The Moorean position does not turn on words, it turns on whether the [special]-making reason can be "empirical" (or more precisely, Lockean).

-

That means that my statement that people are special in a metaphysical way isn't vacuous, but that it exists yet can't be referenced. — Hanover

It looks like you are saying something like, "Humans are special, and we can know this by the way that they are treated, and yet there is no reason why they are special." Do you see how odd that position is? I bring up Moore because I know you're influenced by him, and I don't think such an implausible position would ever be put forward apart from that sort of influence.

I am saying that a human is special because they have the ability to speak Spanish, whether or not they currently exercise that ability. I think a thing can be special in virtue of potencies that it does not currently possess; you do not. You refuse to talk about a potency that the individual does not currently possess. That's the difference. — Leontiskos

You're not saying "I think a thing can be special in virtue of potencies that it does not currently possess." You're saying a thing can be special in virtue of potencies it will never possess but that those like it likely will possess. If speaking Spanish makes something special, then I am special if I can one day speak Spanish. My counter is suppose I can never learn Spanish. I have no such capacity. Can I still be special just because most humans can learn Spanish?

Nope. "Human babies naturally grow into human adults," does not come to, "The specialness of human babies derives from ancestry." — Leontiskos

You use "naturally" here to mean "usually" and usually means what other infants have done in the past, which is known by how their descendants have done. Infants are special because adults are special and infants usually turn into adults. What of those that we know never will? That doesn't matter to you. It does to me.

Just for the fact that my kin is special, so am I.
— Hanover

No, that's not even close. — Leontiskos

Why?

You're not saying "I think a thing can be special in virtue of potencies that it does not currently possess." You're saying a thing can be special in virtue of potencies it will never possess but that those like it likely will possess. If speaking Spanish makes something special, then I am special if I can one day speak Spanish. My counter is suppose I can never learn Spanish. I have no such capacity. Can I still be special just because most humans can learn Spanish? — Hanover

Your premise is invalid, "If an individual never ends up possessing X, then that individual did not have a potency for X." You have a potency to play jazz music whether or not you ever actually do.

If speaking Spanish makes something special, then I am special if I can one day speak Spanish. — Hanover

This is a variant of the error I've already pointed out. The claim is not, "Every individual who will eventually speak the Spanish language is special," but rather, "Every individual who has the potency (or capacity) to speak the Spanish language is special."

A talent scout for NASA may have a goal of building rockets. They will seek out individuals with a capacity for rocket-building, not merely individuals who can currently build rockets. It would make no sense to object to their choice by saying, "But this person you picked can't currently build rockets, so it was a bad choice. They lack the specialness or value you are seeking." ...Nor would it make sense to claim that only individuals who have built a rocket have the capacity to build rockets.

You use "naturally" here to mean "usually" — Hanover

No, I certainly don't. Put Hume out of your head for a moment. A human infant does not grow into a human adult because this has happened in the past. A human infant grows into a human adult because of their telos; because their natural manner of growth has the term of human adulthood. If God made a human infant it would still naturally grow into a human adult, even if this had never happened in the past.

Your premise is invalid, "If an individual never ends up possessing X, then that individual did not have a potency for X." You have a potency to play jazz music whether or not you ever actually do. — Leontiskos

I don't follow. In my example, I said I had no capacity to learn Spanish. I therefore lack that potency. I just can't do it. It's not within my ability. It'd be like teaching a pig to sing.

A talent scout for NASA may have a goal of building rockets. They will seek out individuals with a capacity for rocket-building, not merely individuals who can currently build rockets. It would make no sense to object to their choice by saying, "But this person you picked can't currently build rockets, so it was a bad choice. They lack the specialness or value you are seeking." ...Nor would it make sense to claim that only individuals who have built a rocket have the capacity to build rockets. — Leontiskos

Some infants lack the capacity to ever develop.

No, I certainly don't. Put Hume out of your head for a moment. A human infant does not grow into a human adult because this has happened in the past. A human infant grows into a human adult because of their telos; because their natural manner of growth has the term of human adulthood. If God made a human infant it would still naturally grow into a human adult, even if this had never happened in the past. — Leontiskos

No, that is what is infants usually do. I'm talking about an infant named Bob and Bob's brain is malformed, he has cancer throughout his body, and he has every other imaginable problem that will absolutely interfere with any ability for him to grow into an adult. That infant has infinite worth and to kill him would be murder. His abilility, potential, capacity is to never have any of the things a fully capable adult will have.

I don't follow. In my example, I said I had no capacity to learn Spanish. I therefore lack that potency. I just can't do it. It's not within my ability. It'd be like teaching a pig to sing. — Hanover

But that's not true, is it? You do have a capacity to learn Spanish, and you know it. Pretending you don't isn't to the point.

No, that is what is infants usually do. I'm talking about an infant named Bob and Bob's brain is malformed, he has cancer throughout his body, and he has every other imaginable problem that will absolutely interfere with any ability for him to grow into an adult. That infant has infinite worth and to kill him would be murder. His abilility, potential, capacity is to never have any of the things a fully capable adult will have. — Hanover

If an infant is born deaf then we might say he lacks the potency to learn Spanish, but we might not. In one way he does, in one way he doesn't. The intelligent person would say, "This infant would be able to learn Spanish if he were not deaf" (even though Hume would apparently have trouble with that). What this means is that the infant has a potency to learn Spanish, but that potency is being impeded by an impediment, namely deafness. To say that an infant born deaf has no potency to learn Spanish isn't correct. It would be correct to say that a Maple sapling has no potency to learn Spanish, but not that the deaf infant has no potency:

That you've again misconstrued the position proves my point. We are talking about a telos of human babies, not "what mostly happens." If you actually understood what was being said, then your claim that it only "mostly happens" would entail that human babies sometimes grow into adult giraffes or oak trees or something other than mature humans. — Leontiskos

-

That infant has infinite worth and to kill him would be murder. His abilility, potential, capacity is to never have any of the things a fully capable adult will have. — Hanover

Nevertheless, your position here is still wrong based on the metrics you have provided (common opinion, etc.). For example, common opinion deems it much more permissible to kill an unborn baby if it has certain disabilities, such as Down syndrome. Similarly, if the impediment in question is more easily removable, then the baby is deemed more "special." For example, a baby with the impediment of a heart problem that can be fixed by modern science is deemed more "special" than a baby with the impediment of Down syndrome.

The same thing happens at the end of life, where we literally call those who have irreversibly lost characteristic human functions and potencies "vegetables," and our ethical deliberation hinges on this distinction. So when you claim that, according to common opinion, all babies or all humans are treated the same regardless of their potencies, your claim is false as a matter of fact.

But that's not true, is it? You do have a capacity to learn Spanish, and you know it. Pretending you don't isn't to the point. — Leontiskos

It's not pretending. It's stipulating. I lack the capacity to learn nuclear physics. That is true.

What this means is that the infant has a potency to learn Spanish, but that potency is being impeded by an impediment, namely deafness. — Leontiskos

An infant born without a brain lacks any ability to learn Spanish ever. To say he has the potential to learn Spanish if he has a brain inserted and that is simply an impediment is to say the same of trees. If only the tree had a brain, it could speak Spanish.

For example, common opinion deems it much more permissible to kill an unborn baby if it has certain disabilities, such as Down syndrome. Similarly, if the impediment in question is more easily removable, then the baby is deemed more "special." For example, a baby with the impediment of a heart problem that can be fixed by modern science is deemed more "special" than a baby with the impediment of Down syndrome. — Leontiskos

No, I hold that the murder of a Down's Syndrome child is just as much murder as murdering one without that disability. And so does the law.

But anyway, I thought there was more confusion here than there was. You truly didn't follow my counterexamples. The reason I reject your claim that human specialness is linked to the complex intellectual capacities found in human adults is becuase many humans lack those characteristics, both currently and in the future.

I lack the capacity to learn nuclear physics. That is true. — Hanover

Is it, though? I think you're just saying something like, "It would be really hard, therefore I lack the capacity." I think this is another invalid claim.

An infant born without a brain lacks any ability to learn Spanish ever. To say he has the potential to learn Spanish if he has a brain inserted and that is simply an impediment is to say the same of trees. If only the tree had a brain, it could speak Spanish. — Hanover

But you're just reaching at this point. You're pretending that it makes sense to talk about infants born without brains, as if human beings could live without a brain. You've fallen into a form of eristic. If someone without a brain comes out of the womb then it would not be valued in the way you say all babies are valued, because we do not value dead things equally with living things.

No, I hold that the murder of a Down's Syndrome child is just as much murder as murdering one without that disability. — Hanover

Well you claimed that you wanted to talk about common opinion. Now it turns out that you don't, because it doesn't help your point. You've abandoned the standard that you yourself erected when it became inconvenient, and this is a sign of bad faith argumentation.

But anyway, I thought there was more confusion here than there was. You truly didn't follow my counterexamples. The reason I reject your claim that human specialness is linked to the complex intellectual capacities found in human adults is becuase many humans lack those characteristics, both currently and in the future. — Hanover

Lol, you're just reiterating your confusion and your strawmen. You're still failing to address the idea of final causality and falling into Humean probabilistic thinking.

This searches for a metaphysical distinction that can't be spoken, yet usage clearly dictates you're in error. — Hanover

Usage does not dictate reality. "literally" used figuratively shows that semantics cannot resolve this issue. Why are humans special? Because other humans care about them? If so, this is contingent on a human making hte statement (assuming i grant hte premise). I don't think I need to explain the lack there of any metaphysical implication?
If it can't be spoken, and is contingent on a shoddy perspectival context (note: I don't agree with you, and I am human) the i suggest it's essentially nonsense (though, when I say that I do not mean "meaningless". I mean it lacks a sense in which it could be considered metaphysical, or 'factual' let's say). This should make it clear I have taken account of 'usage'.

What do propose could be referred to prove the specialness exists outside our use of the term? If there is nothing that can be pointed to, then you're not saying humans are not special, but that "special" has no meaning. — Hanover

This seems to dance around the point - perhaps purposefully. In turn:

1. That humans adhere to the definition we have for 'specialness' (or a similar word - I could take a semantically analogous word, and if it fit there I would resile. But this word specifically wont do on it's face);
2. Well that would run up against 1. Special has a meaning that doesn't apply to humans.

It's possible that you're describing the special reaction humans have to other humans. That's fine. We mostly feel that. However, when i was sociopathic I couldn't care less. Makes you wonder whether you're operating on a generalization that wont hold, evne if it's reasonable (which it is. Not denying that).

That means that my statement that people are special in a metaphysical way isn't vacuous, but that it exists yet can't be referenced. — Hanover

This is an obviously theological bent to the argument, though, even if that's not your basis for reasoning. "It's there, but you don't get if you don't get it" is the same thing "grace" amounts to in most theologists thinking. If the suggestion is that it cannot be referenced, but is somehow true, that is vacuous in my view. I didn't think that was quite what you were trying to say though, so I apologise if previous comments weren't taking you correctly.

It looks like you are saying something like, "Humans are special, and we can know this by the way that they are treated, and yet there is no reason why they are special." — Leontiskos

Fwiw, This is also roughly what I got from you. I've not canvassed further comments in that chain yet.

You seem to be saying that humans don't need to meet the criteria to be considered 'special' and Leon seems to be saying that actually they me the criteria. Neither seems realistic to me. Maybe we just odn't have more to say to each other on it.

You seem to be saying that humans don't need to meet the criteria to be considered 'special' and Leon seems to be saying that actually they me[et] the criteria. — AmadeusD

Right, and I would say that you and @Hanover are very close on these sorts of issues. You share all of the same premises but simply fall on a different side of the issue. In this case you both think the question of whether something is "special" is arbitrary and generally undecidable in any serious way. Hanover says, "I say babies are special, and you can't gainsay this because the whole question is arbitrary and undecidable." You say, "I say babies are not special, but none of this really matters because 'special' is an arbitrary concept that could mean anything and everything."

"special" is arbitrary — Leontiskos

That's not quite it. Special does mean something and we've been given that definition in this thread, and applying the label can be accurate or inaccurate. I just happen to think its inaccurate here.

More to your point, picking out the species that we are to claim that species is special seems a bit misguided to me. IT doesn't touch on whether or not the criteria are met, it just is given as an axiom. I wanted a reason. If the answer is "Well, there isn't. We simply are humans and that's special because its 1 out of x species that we get to be" Cool, but that's not for me. (that's Han's position, as I take it).

Yours just rests on us not seeing eye to eye on humans as a basic entity in the world, I think.

That's not quite it. Special does mean something and we've been given that definition in this thread, and applying the label can be accurate or inaccurate. I just happen to think its inaccurate here. — AmadeusD

Okay, so:

The definition of special is "better, greater, or otherwise different from what is usual." — AmadeusD

I don't know of any other species which uses language, composes poetry, mathematizes the physical universe, develops vehicles to fly around within the atmosphere and even beyond, develops traditions which last for thousands of years and span civilizational epochs, and worships God. If humans aren't special then I don't know what is. — Leontiskos

• 1. Humans are the only species which "uses language, composes poetry, mathematizes the physical universe, develops vehicles to fly around within the atmosphere and even beyond, develops traditions which last for thousands of years and span civilizational epochs, and worships God"
• 2. If something is "different from what is usual," then it is special
• 3. The only species which "uses language, composes poetry, mathematizes the physical universe, develops vehicles to fly around within the atmosphere and even beyond, develops traditions which last for thousands of years and span civilizational epochs, and worships God," is a species that is different from what is usual
• 4. Therefore, humans are special

This is to support my claim that you denied:

Your definition seems to apply especially to humans, given the considerations I listed. — Leontiskos

I simply disagree. Language is not specific to humans. The others work, and I may need to think on them - But i still can't see how that makes us special.

Pretty sneaky Edit: Please read my responses below. They pertain directly to this and clarify.

We also don't lick our own arses(cats), live in trees(Howlers), see in the dark(Owls), breathe underwater(Sharks) etc.. etc.. Picking out hte species we are simply because it is the species we are is... hehe...specious. Using this definition, literally any species could be called special. That is precisely how that word loses meaning.

I do thank you immensely for tying me down and crystalizing all ofthis.

The specialness could be seen, from the alien outside observer viewpoint again, as possessing consciousness and reflective perception. We are the only species that knows they are going to die as one example, so they say.

Now that is only special to us because we can appreciate it but perhaps other species with similar intelligences could also appreciate it as special. From a none (relatively higher) consciousness being's perspective it would not be special. Any of the animals you stated above of course would not see it as special.

So I suppose the question of special is, to whom? and only those species with similar traits would see those traits in other species as particularly special.

Some interesting debate has been had from a so called 'creepy and disgusting' thread eh? :)

In this case you both think the question of whether something is "special" is arbitrary and generally undecidable in any serious way. Hanover says, "I say babies are special, and you can't gainsay this because the whole question is arbitrary and undecidable." — Leontiskos

I do think it's knowable in a serious way. I think human worth is infinite, regardless of the utility of the human, as a matter of belief. That you think faith based reasoning isn't serious just exposes your bias. You can't derive meaning from logic or empirical evidence. That's not to say you can't arrive at reasons to explain why your faith might be, but even if you can't arrive at those reasons doesn't negate it.

But you're just reaching at this point. You're pretending that it makes sense to talk about infants born without brains, as if human beings could live without a brain. You've fallen into a form of eristic. If someone without a brain comes out of the womb then it would not be valued in the way you say all babies are valued, because we do not value dead things equally with living things. — Leontiskos

Surely you can envision there being an infant born today who will not have the capacity for higher thought of any type.

It's possible that you're describing the special reaction humans have to other humans. — AmadeusD

Reaction is all we can gauge, which is just to say that if meaning is use, then that's how we define the word. The lack of referent isn't critical because it's not the referent that determines the meaning necessarily. This isn't to suggest that an infant cannot have a metaphysical component that elevates its value. It just doesn't speak to it and it accepts the inability to speak directly to it, but that has to do with language and definitions and not metaphysics. I'm not denying the value of the infant because we can't point to that specialness and I'm not suggesting that the specialness is dictated by the word. I'm just saying that when you point out that specialness doesn't exist because it can't be identified that you're creating the category error or mixing language with metaphysics.

Yeah, it's not as if I don't understand what's being said here. There are plenty of things about humans that are unique - but that goes for all species (well, almost all. Some are of a close kind i guess). We share most traits with primates at some level. The things you mention are certainly unique, but it is not unusual for animals to have novel or unique aspects. This is why i say it can only really be a contingent type of special - rejecting a metaphysical claim only.

For human minds, humans are ipso facto special as the one species who is itself (from their perspective). Thats fine.

The above probably half-answers this post, but yeah I don't deny the premises of what you're saying, i just deny entirely that it gives us any metaphysical comments to make. It's true that for a human, other humans are special by being either of a kind with the entity observing them, or by having hte same unique traits (consciousness etc..). These are all contingent. Something metaphysically special would be, for instance claiming that Earth is special because we are unaware of any other life in the entire universe. That's a better argument to my mind.

I think human worth is infinite, regardless of the utility of the human, as a matter of belief. — Hanover

So this makes sense and seems to confirm roughly what I saw behind your comments. That's not in any way meant to be a negative. It means you're being coherent and true to your beliefs.

I simply disagree. — AmadeusD

You can't "simply disagree" when I give a formal argument using your own definition. You have to actually address the argument, and claim that a premise or inference is incorrect.

Using this definition, literally any species could be called special. That is precisely how that word loses meaning. — AmadeusD

Then you disagree with your own definition, but I already pointed out what you are saying and you denied it:

You say, "I say babies are not special, but none of this really matters because 'special' is an arbitrary concept that could mean anything and everything." — Leontiskos

That's not quite it. Special does mean something and we've been given that definition in this thread, and applying the label can be accurate or inaccurate. I just happen to think its inaccurate here. — AmadeusD

...and now you're back to saying that 'special' is an arbitrary concept, "Using this definition, literally any species could be called special." Well it's your definition that we are using, so if you have a problem with the definition then that's on you.

ou have to actually address the argument, and claim that a premise or inference is incorrect. — Leontiskos

I quite literally did. Focusing on my use of the word 'simply' is .... weird.

Then you disagree with your own definition, but I already pointed out what you are saying and you denied it: — Leontiskos

What are you talking about? It's not 'my own' definition, I don't disagree with it and it is not incompatible with what I've said. What is going on with you lol..

and now you're back to saying that 'special' is an arbitrary concept, — Leontiskos

No, I am not, and I never was. I do not know how many times I can be bothered correcting your misreadings. Actually address what I've said - you continually do not. You're so stuck on semantics you're not even seeing that there is knocks downs aplenty on this page alone. I shall avoid this discussion if the next response doesn't significantly improve.

I quite literally did. — AmadeusD

Let's look then:

Language is not specific to humans. The others work, and I may need to think on them - But i still can't see how that makes us special. — AmadeusD

"The others work but I can't see how that makes us special." The argument is literally explaining to you, step by step, how it makes us special. I don't know how to make it any easier for you. It's mind-boggling to me that I even had to write out such an obvious argument. Here it is again with the language part removed for you benefit:

• 1. Humans are the only species which "uses language, composes poetry, mathematizes the physical universe, develops vehicles to fly around within the atmosphere and even beyond, develops traditions which last for thousands of years and span civilizational epochs, and worships God"
• 2. If something is "different from what is usual," then it is special {this is from your definition}
• 3. The only species which "uses language, composes poetry, mathematizes the physical universe, develops vehicles to fly around within the atmosphere and even beyond, develops traditions which last for thousands of years and span civilizational epochs, and worships God," is a species that is different from what is usual
• 4. Therefore, humans are special