Steve Stewart-Williams Quotes

49 Sourced Quotes

Even if we accept the basic logic of the natural law argument against homosexuality, we have to ask just how wicked a sin it could really be. People sometimes use metal coat hangers as impromptu TV aerials, a purpose for which they were not designed. Likewise, children sometimes climb up slides instead of sliding down them. Are these activities heinous infractions of the moral law? Are they an insult to the people who designed the coat hangers or the slides?

Steve Stewart-Williams
If we decide – and this is our decision; it's not imposed on us from above – if we decide that reducing the amount of suffering in the world is a good ethical principle to live by, then it becomes entirely unjustified and arbitrary to extend this principle to human beings but not also to extend it to other animals capable of suffering. Why should the suffering of nonhumans be less important than that of humans? Surely a universe with less suffering is better than one with more, regardless of whether the locus of suffering is a human being or not, a rational being or not, a member of the moral community or not. Suffering is suffering, and these other variables are morally irrelevant.

Steve Stewart-Williams
Why would the omnipotent creator of the entire universe be so deeply attached to a bipedal, tropical ape? Why would He take on the bodily form of one of these peculiar tailless primates? Why would such a magnificent being be so obsessively, nit-pickingly preoccupied with trivial matters such as the dress code and sexual behaviour of one mammalian species, especially its female members?

Steve Stewart-Williams
Some people worry that to say we are nothing but matter is to deny that we think or feel. It's not. The strange fact is that, when suitably arranged, matter thinks and feels.

Steve Stewart-Williams
If religion doesn't make people good, why do people think that it does? Simple: Because religion teaches that it makes people good. It's part of its sales pitch. But it's also quite possibly untrue.

Steve Stewart-Williams
The claim that women have a stronger average parental urge than men is sometimes viewed as a sexist generalization. But it's only sexist if we take a dim view of the trait in question: the parental urge. One could turn the accusation on its head: Those who view the evolutionist's claim (that women are more parental than men) as sexist are actually being sexist themselves, because they're taking a negative view of a trait that's usually found more strongly in females than males. They are therefore prizing prototypically masculine traits more highly than prototypically feminine ones.

Steve Stewart-Williams
From a comparative perspective, we are a relatively monomorphic mammal, with relatively monomorphic minds.

Steve Stewart-Williams
Some claim that life, the universe, and mind are miraculous. My conclusion is that these things are really, really amazing, but that they're not miraculous (unless by miraculous, you just mean 'really, really amazing').

Steve Stewart-Williams
To a hypothetical alien with a vastly superior intellect to our own, human minds would be classed as intermediate forms between the mindless and the fully minded.

Steve Stewart-Williams
We like to think that reason is the supreme adaptation; that rational animals deserve preferential treatment; and that nonhumans, because they don't have reason, have no intrinsic moral value. However, after Darwin, this is no different and no more convincing than, say, an elephant thinking that trunks are the supreme adaptation; that animals with trunks deserve preferential treatment; and that non-elephants, because they don't have trunks, have no intrinsic moral value.

Steve Stewart-Williams
As a result of high levels of male parental investment, humans evolved into a somewhat androgynous species - a species in which human females exhibit traits generally found only in males (e. g., competition for mates) and human males exhibit traits generally found only in females (e. g., the provision of parental care; choosiness about mates).

Steve Stewart-Williams
This is especially important when addressing less statistically savvy audiences. Such audiences could perhaps be encouraged to think of two normal distributions, one representing males and the other females. Instead of imagining that natural selection creates two distinct psychological types — a male type and a female type, described by the mean values for each group — they could be encouraged to imagine that natural selection pushes the male and female distributions closer together or further apart. This simple expedient may help people to visualize the effects of natural selection on average sex differences without at the same time losing sight of the variation within each sex.

Steve Stewart-Williams
We are a species in which both sexes have their equivalents of the peacock's tail. Indeed, when it comes to physical beauty, the usual sex difference has arguably been reversed: Females are the showier sex.

Steve Stewart-Williams
Even in a pointless universe, pointless happiness and pleasures are surely preferable to pointless suffering.

Steve Stewart-Williams
Changes in the inhabitants of the earth do not reflect a constant process of improvement in the design of organisms, any more than changes in fashion over the years reflect a constant process of improvement in the quality of clothing.

Steve Stewart-Williams
Around 13.8 billion years after the Big Bang, and almost four billion years since life first evolved, something strange began to happen: Tiny parts of the universe became conscious, and came to know something about themselves and the universe of which they are a part... Eventually, some of these tiny parts of the universe - the parts we call 'scientists' and 'scientifically-informed laypeople' - came to understand the Big Bang and the evolutionary process through which they had come to exist. After an eternity of unconsciousness, the universe now had some glimmering awareness that it existed and some understanding of where it had come from.

Steve Stewart-Williams
Of course, nothing can be said to argue that people are morally obliged to accept this ethic, for to do so would be inconsistent with the ideas that inspired it in the first place. It is an ethic that will be adopted – if at all – by those who find a certain stark beauty in kindness without reward, joy without purpose, and progress without lasting achievement.

Steve Stewart-Williams
People kill nonhuman animals for food, for their skins, and sometimes just for fun. We enslave animals and force them to work for us. We experiment on them and justify their suffering in terms of our advantage. Because most of us want to be able to view ourselves as good people (and, perhaps more importantly, because we want others to view us as good people), we may be motivated to view nonhumans in such a way that these activities are rendered morally unproblematic. One way to do this is to view other animals as utterly different from us.

Steve Stewart-Williams
Certainly, the human-animal distinction is still workable; after all, we rarely make errors in assigning entities to one category or the other. But after Darwin, the distinction suddenly seems arbitrary – as arbitrary as the equally workable distinction between, say, turtles and non-turtles.

Steve Stewart-Williams