Relativism Gone Relative to the Point of Madness:

The New York Times asks: “Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy?

Our species possesses inherent value, but we are devastating the earth and causing unimaginable animal suffering.”

 [By Mr. Todd May, a professor of philosophy at Clemson University; Dec. 17, 2018] And so what? Well, publishes the New York Times, we should be indifferent to the extinction of all human babies…

Mr. May reveals himself to be incapable of distinguishing a human being from a shrimp. We have seen it all before. The Nazis highly valued such people, affected with similar inhuman lack of discernment: they had plenty of tasks for them.

Many common philosophers have sunk so low, they ask, to earn their pittance by ingratiating themselves to, and be published by the plutocratic media: would killing all humans be a tragedy? By that token of abysmal questioning, Auschwitz was not even an appetizer for a pleasant smoke-out. With, or without Heidegger, Nazism got many children. Or is it an infection, a pandemic?

One mistake those who want deep down inside to see humanity gone make, is that they claim humanity causes suffering of all conscious beings, and that’s tragic (Mr. May’s main argument).

However, the consciousness of a shrimp, or a sheep, doesn’t equate to human consciousness. Different consciousnesses are not like different frames moving relative to each other. One neuron does not equate ten billion neurons, just like a space with one dimension does not equate with one with ten billion dimensions. 

That a whale swallows millions of shrimps doesn’t make it a Hitler swallowing millions of Jews. Humans are no shrimps, even though some professional philosophers are hard to distinguish from shrimps:

Hitler and Helga Goebbels. After Hitler’s death, Helga , then 12 years old, was forced fed poison (a Soviet autopsy revealed). She resisted to the point of facial injury. The Goebbels’ parents hated non-Nazi humanity with all incandescent hatred.

Even non-human predators know this, how exceptional human beings are… something all too many professional philosophers deny (so that they can become famous and well-fed): a wolf will kill sheep, just because he can, but will respect a human being, just because he can look at the human in the eye, and recognize intelligence and fellow high level consciousness. I have personally made that experience in the wild with both wolf and lions. There is no doubt wolves and lions hesitate before inflicting pain to a creature with superior intelligence and consciousness.

Not all creatures are fellow: superior sentient animals know this perfectly well, because it’s an imminently practical notion: their lives depend upon it. Superior animals are clever enough and knowledgeable enough to know that injuring a highly social and competent human being will have bad consequences.

By the same token, the environment has no consciousness, it doesn’t suffer as a sentient creature.

The Nazis went down that same exact road, passing all sorts of laws for animal welfare, to better relativize human lives… by respecting rats… Respecting rats in a showy fashion makes it easier to kill humans. In the very lethally racist caste system in ancient India, courtesy was extended to cows and other beasts, to better deny the most basic humanity to lower caste human beings.

All too relative philosophers play the role of dynamic red herrings, capturing feeble minds with fascinating outrage, and nonsensical jargon. Yes, they say, people are no better than shrimps, be good to them, shrimps, and the masters of the world applaud… 

Patrice Ayme

***

***

Here is an extensive quote from the theoretician of mass lethal imbecility in the New York Times, to show I am neither distorting nor exaggerating what was published there:

To make that claim less puzzling, let me say a word about tragedy. In theater, the tragic character is often someone who commits a wrong, usually a significant one, but with whom we feel sympathy in their descent. Here Sophocles’s Oedipus, Shakespeare’s Lear, and Arthur Miller’s Willy Loman might stand as examples. In this case, the tragic character is humanity. It is humanity that is committing a wrong, a wrong whose elimination would likely require the elimination of the species, but with whom we might be sympathetic nonetheless for reasons I discuss in a moment.

To make that case, let me start with a claim that I think will be at once depressing and, upon reflection, uncontroversial. Human beings are destroying large parts of the inhabitable earth and causing unimaginable suffering to many of the animals that inhabit it. This is happening through at least three means. First, human contribution to climate change is devastating ecosystems, as the recent article on Yellowstone Park in The Times exemplifies. Second, increasing human population is encroaching on ecosystems that would otherwise be intact. Third, factory farming fosters the creation of millions upon millions of animals for whom it offers nothing but suffering and misery before slaughtering them in often barbaric ways. There is no reason to think that those practices are going to diminish any time soon. Quite the opposite.

Humanity, then, is the source of devastation of the lives of conscious animals on a scale that is difficult to comprehend.

Well, what’s hard to comprehend is that, 73 years after the Nuremberg trial of the Nazis, this sort of deep criminal trash, where human lives are equated to flies, is still wildly publicized!

 

Tags: , ,

11 Responses to “Relativism Gone Relative to the Point of Madness:”

  1. benign Says:

    Desensitizes to abet the omnicide of the lower classes…

    Like

  2. brodix Says:

    Patrice,
    That seems somewhat muddled logic.
    On the one hand you say elites equate other people with animals, in order to deligitimate and put them down. While also saying all people are superior to all other life.
    It seems the real issue here is not so much relativism, as are all connected at some level, but polarization. Us versus them. Tribalism.
    Consider that Nazi stands for national socialism. What modern terms could better describe the essence of tribalism? The group as an organic unit. The Aryan natuon.
    The cause of this protoclivity is that our Western culture is ideals based. That there is some perfect state to which all of life aspires. So that as soon as a few people agree to anything, it is assumed it must be good and anything opposing is bad. We need a more reflective and reciprocal philosophy of life. Otherwise we really are just racing across the petri dish, whatever our feelings on the purpose of humanity.

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      At an airport, no time. Please read the NYT article, the usual ‘men are no better than shrimp’ argument is deployed… That’s not me…. Of course Plutos don’t believe that, but that gives them an opportunity to treat people as shrimp, and gobble them. OK, Xtianism calls them “SHEEP”, not SHrimps…

      Like

      • brodix Says:

        Lol. I’ll take your word the NYT is printing mindless goop. My own reading is too limited to waste on going further than headlines.
        I still think the conceptual issue isn’t so much relativism, as everything is related and its opposite is fundamentalism.
        It is polarization currently tearing the world apart. As your own argument shows, relativism is just a tool to lump everyone outside the chosen together.

        Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Let me explain. The Nazis made a great show to care about animals and the environment. They passed a lot of laws supporting both. That Nazi heritage is alive and well.
      I view that PARTICULAR Nazi heritage as a good thing.
      However I also view that somewhat extravagant care for animals a cover-up for pretending they were careful, and care givers, and surely would not kill millions of Poles, contradictors. war prisoners, and Jews.
      Now there are many philosophers extending that Nazi approach (Singer, etc.). Reason is same as above, and actually already blatant in India of old….

      Like

      • brodix Says:

        Which supports that insiders versus outsiders organic tribal dynamic. What’s inside and part of the social organism is valued and nutured. Anything considered a predator or parasite is not only not valued, but treated as a threat. The fact is that it is an element of nature we have to face and understand, not simply retreat into a simple good/bad binary.
        Good and bad are not some cosmic universal. They are a basic biological binary of beneficial and detrimental. What is good for the fox is bad for the chicken. We are about to find the greatest good for humanity is a healthy planet and to work toward that goal, we will find ourselves playing the role of the central nervous system of a planetary organism. The Gaia hypothesis.
        Yes, we can terraform the planet around us, as the body protects the nervous system, in a symbiotic relationship, but the first step is working toward that cyclical belief system, not the linear, goal oriented, ends validate the means system we have now.

        Like

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          We should go Quantum Decisional… What Bohm called Wholesome Goodness, or something like that. The Implicated Whole… Taking into account, as the Quantum does, the global geometry….

          Like

          • brodix Says:

            The globe is our petri dish. If we don’t recognize that limit, it will impress itself on our belief system, in a fundamental manner.

            Like

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            It’s already there: remember the Nazis’ obsession with “Lebensraum” (Vital Space)? All too relative philosophers play the role of dynamic red herrings. Yes, they say, people are no better than shrimps, and the masters of the world applaud…

            Like

      • brodix Says:

        I don’t think it’s so much the resources, such as space, but the reductionist distillation of all value to notational abstraction. Our mental tool kit carried to extremes.
        Given the degree to which debate dissolves into emotion, politics rules.

        Like

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: