Human and Alien Rights: Permanently at Odds?

Mary Doria Russell's The Sparrow is such an involving and emotional book that I was worried that I would be too taken in by the story and the characters that I would not be able to see past the plot to examine the deeper themes. However, I found that my mind was still able to pull out pertinent topics and themes because of the thoughtful way in which Russell writes. There's no shortage of religious and social themes to draw from. One topic that is extremely interesting and also impossible to come to a definitive conclusion on is that of morality and comparing the Jana'ata's ideas of right and wrong with our own. This is addressed prominently in Aaron Zisook's blog post for this week. Aaron asks a key question: is it "our place to decide their [the Jana'ata's] morals, or do different species have some right to decide their own morality?" In reading the book this certainly came into my thoughts, particularly in light of what is done to Emilio. Although the Jana'ata, particularly Supaari, recognized Emilio as a sentient being, they felt no reservation in treating him like an object and treating him in a way that is, to us, repulsive and horrifying. The reason that the moral system of the Jana'ata is so difficult to understand is that we, as humans, can hardly comprehend treating a sentient being as an animal. But this is certainly not true across society; human beings are constantly being dehumanized and rape is not a foreign concept. Still, the idea of keeping an individual as a sex toy shocks and repulses us because it seems to be completely acceptable in Jana'ata society, unlike how it would be treated in human society.

So, Aaron's question comes up again...since the action was accepted in Jana'ata culture, but completely rejected in human society, do we have a right to dictate to the Jana'ata what we deem as right and wrong? In the case of the forced prostitution of humans, I have to say that humans should have some right to dictate what the aliens do. This is because it harms humans directly. Now, this question gets a bit more fuzzy when looking at the Jana'ata practice of eating the Runa young that were not authorized to be born. In this case, the practice does not have a direct effect on humans. While we may find the act to be morally offensive, does that give us the right to interfere? What if there were an alien species that found the fact that we keep domesticated animals as pets to be morally wrong? (This is clearly a less extreme example, but it is possible that some species might feel that keeping animals "in captive" is as bad as killing the young of another species.) Would it be acceptable for this species to come to Earth and steal everyone's pets in order to set them free? Humanity would be shocked and indignant and, very possibly, enraged. So, you can see where the lines become blurred. It's like that line from the Star Trek film, The Undiscovered Country, "Human rights. The very term is racist."

I'm sure, however, that many people in class will have different opinions on this subject and no matter which way you look at it, Russell provides a huge amount of material to consider and sift through. As one reviewer puts it, "she [Russell] uses the relationship among the aliens, and between the aliens and humans, to explore what it means to be civilized and the nature of morality." Like Aaron, I find this to be a fascinating topic that is continuously occupying my thoughts, even now that I am finished with the book. The real difficulty is looking past our initial repulsion at what the Jana'ata do to the Runa and to Emilio and trying to consider their side of the morality argument. Robert Wiblin's blog addresses this argument briefly by pointing out that "If the human and alien species met to discuss their moral preferences, it is not clear to what either side could appeal to work out which one of them was right." This just illustrates the enormous problem of the idea of "universal human (if we can even use that word) rights."