🚀 go-pugleaf

>
> Jonathan Haskett writes:
>
> >Fairness and justice are strictly human concepts, which can have meaning
> >*only* in a human social context. To the extant that wilderness and other
> >species exist outside the human context, these concepts do not apply to
> >them. Just as it is impossible for other species which exist outside the
> >human context to have rights. "Fair share" is a biologically meaningless
> >concept.
>
> and Tormod V. Burkey responds:
>
> We do not know and probably never will know anything about other animal's
> concepts of fairness or justice, or lack thereof. This is prejudice, and
> has nothing to do in a scientific forum. We do not have the ability to
> communicate with other species to hear their views on fairness and justice
> (or lack thereof), nor do we have instruments to tell us what they may be
> thinking (or _whether_ they are thinking).
>
But isn't the best indication of what humans *really believe* about fairness
and justice their behavior in every day life?  Sure, we don't have an in on
champanzee religion and metaphysics, but when standard behavior of an animal
is to kill off the offspring of a new mate that were sired by others, I think
I can clain that this species does not subscribe to human values of fairness.
I don't object to humans using such values in their dealings with other
species, but I think it is not speciesist to claim than some concepts of
social interaction are uniquely human, and we need to be very careful not
to be so arogant as to assume other animals share them.

Paul Conklin
psconk@acpub.duke.edu