Things I Think, Things I Know

"In ancient Chinese, Egyptian and Mesopotamian literature, Smith found 

repeated references to enemies as subhuman creatures. But it's not as simple 

as a comparison. "When people dehumanize others, they actually conceive 

of them as subhuman creatures," says Smith. Only then can the process "liberate 

aggression and exclude the target of aggression from the moral community.""

- Less Than Human, by David Livingstone Smith

This has indeed been recorded over and over in history, and it is more than just association. I don't think it is possible to justify or rationalize certain actions - experimentation without consent or true information, forcibly separating children from parents, mass murder - unless the subjects of those actions are excluded from the moral community. There is no shortcut around that exclusion. Not that there needs to be. Othering followed by exclusion is terrifyingly easy for the human brain.

Granted, it's not sufficient, even if it is necessary. There also needs to be some reason to harm those excluded beings. Self-defense? Destruction of evil? Greater good? For an animal rights activist who includes other animals in the moral community, separating an unwanted male calf from a dairy cow or the mass slaughter of hens is understandably unacceptable. Yet even those who eat meat are disturbed by such images. They would never condone killing a bird, even humanely, for no reason. It is accepted as a necessary evil for the greater good of creating chicken as a food, whether explicitly or implicitly.

Likewise, those opposed to recent actions of the current US administration generally include undocumented immigrants (often explicitly) in the moral community. Those in favor of these actions must not only at least implicitly exclude them, but also have some reason for the violence.

That might be thinking of them as evil, as rapists or killers or criminals.
It might be done in self-defense, such as perceived protection of jobs or family or culture.
It could be ostensibly for the greater good, as in Tuskegee or Natzweiler or Harbin.

But it has to be something, and something more serious than taste or craving. No matter how much some humans may exclude other humans from the moral community, they are not quite so excluded as animals grown for food (as opposed to kittens or giraffes). Unfortunately, humans are today much easier targets of fear and anger than other animals, and these two are some of the strongest motivators for action that exist.

So, what to do? How to reaffirm someone's membership in the moral community? The simplest way is to just say so, as people do on Facebook or blogs, in speeches and discussions, in emails to representatives. The most forceful way is to demonstrate suffering, especially by image or video. The hardest path, but perhaps the greatest, is to engineer meaningful interactions.

As terrifyingly easy as it is for us to other and exclude beings, it is also incredibly hard for us to do so when we know their story. Even if we can only know their mind and emotions and experience incompletely, that imperfect understanding can still sometimes be enough. Not always, of course, and the closer the relationship the better.

I do not know how to create this hardest path. I doubt there is one best way, when we other and exclude beings along a myriad of dimensions - age, gender, race, species, nation, language, income, incarceration...

I know interacting with generous listening helps, being curious and non-judgmental.
I know a cosmic perspective helps, seeing the earth and humanity from the viewpoint of space.
I know ferociously reading fiction helps, opening ourselves to other worlds and lives.
I know self-aware mindfulness helps, examining our own thoughts and assumptions.
I know sharing others' joy and sorrow helps, becoming emotional on their behalf.

So, I don't know much, but these things I know. Please, help me know more.