Are animals equal or inferior to humans?

[mpok1519]

Humans are animals. Of the genus homo and the species sapien.

 

[AlexBP]

Humans are animals. Of the genus homo and the species sapien.

In the scientific classification scheme that's true but in all important contexts humans are not animals. I'm sure that you've walked through doors labeled "no animals allowed" on countless occasions. Hence you know that you, who are human, are not an animal.

 

[AlexBP]

It's like a rattlesnake remarking on humans lack of endurance and inability to kill with a single bite.

Reading, writing, and the other things that I mentioned in post #3 are indicators of a higher station on the great chain of being, while ability to kill with a single bite is not. Therefore there's no equivalence between your example and the evidence I offered for the higher nature of humanity. (Further, of course, rattlesnakes can't remark on that, nor can they remark on anything; they can't talk.)

In a way this conversation always seems to me utterly inane. Animals at times roll around in the mud, roll around in their own poo, eat their own poo, kill and eat their own children, &c... &c... If you're honestly not able to find any meaningful differences that raise humans above that level, that gives me an extremely strong reason to desire to avoid acquiring your way of thought.

 

[Freodin]

Reading, writing, and the other things that I mentioned in post #3 are indicators of a higher station on the great chain of being, while ability to kill with a single bite is not.

According to which standard? Oh, that's right: the human standard!

But why should that be some kind of absolute standard of greatness?


It isn't.

Humans are animals, because humans make this classification. Humans are not animals, because again humans make that classification. There is no absolute standard. There is no absolute "higher" or "lower". There is only difference.

Humans are the only existing biological organisms that are... human. In the same way, ants are the only existing biological organisms that are antish. Humans are extremly bad at being ants, and vice versa.

So on the antish classification (if ants did such a human thing as classifying) humans would be "lower" than ants.

 

[quatona]

In the scientific classification scheme that's true but in all important contexts humans are not animals. I'm sure that you've walked through doors labeled "no animals allowed" on countless occasions. Hence you know that you, who are human, are not an animal.

Yeah right, labels on doors is all we need for an education.

 

[Belk]

Reading, writing, and the other things that I mentioned in post #3 are indicators of a higher station on the great chain of being, while ability to kill with a single bite is not. Therefore there's no equivalence between your example and the evidence I offered for the higher nature of humanity. (Further, of course, rattlesnakes can't remark on that, nor can they remark on anything; they can't talk.)

What is the "great chain of being" and how is ones position on it determined?

In a way this conversation always seems to me utterly inane. Animals at times roll around in the mud, roll around in their own poo, eat their own poo, kill and eat their own children, &c... &c... If you're honestly not able to find any meaningful differences that raise humans above that level, that gives me an extremely strong reason to desire to avoid acquiring your way of thought.

Hey, no worries. Many people feel the need to protect their assumptions by being derisive of those who do not see things the same way.

 

[Mling]

In the scientific classification scheme that's true but in all important contexts humans are not animals. I'm sure that you've walked through doors labeled "no animals allowed" on countless occasions. Hence you know that you, who are human, are not an animal.

That depends heavily on what you consider important. Personally, I consider scientific classification more important, in the general scheme of life, than what sorts of creatures are allowed in a 7-11. Also, for example, if my cells had rigid walls and I didn't have muscles, I wouldn't be able to type; if I had no brain, I wouldn't be able to enjoy the video I'm watching or the rain outside, and if nobody had brains, then this computer wouldn't be here in the first place. In the vast, vast majority of things that I consider important, being an animal is an intrinsic part of the experience. I experience it through my animal body and perceive it through my animal brain. What else could be more important to a person's life than everything they experience, everything they think, everything they remember and everything they feel? In fact, when considering a person's life, what else is there, at all?

 

[AlexBP]

That depends heavily on what you consider important. Personally, I consider scientific classification more important, in the general scheme of life, than what sorts of creatures are allowed in a 7-11.

And personally I think the opposite. If scientific textbooks were changed to redefine humans as a new kingdom of living things tomorrow it would not directly impact my life in any way. By contrast, if it were decided in real and meaningful contexts that humans were animals then I'd no longer be able to go shopping, eat in restaurants, go to the bank or the post office or the library, etc... Those things seem to me to be extremely important.

Also, for example, if my cells had rigid walls and I didn't have muscles, I wouldn't be able to type; if I had no brain, I wouldn't be able to enjoy the video I'm watching or the rain outside, and if nobody had brains, then this computer wouldn't be here in the first place. In the vast, vast majority of things that I consider important, being an animal is an intrinsic part of the experience. I experience it through my animal body and perceive it through my animal brain. What else could be more important to a person's life than everything they experience, everything they think, everything they remember and everything they feel? In fact, when considering a person's life, what else is there, at all?

If you had an animal's body and brain you would not be able to type, nor watch a video, etc... If all of us had only animal brains and animals bodies then nobody would ever have invented computers, videos, or anything else. How many patents are held by monkeys? How many inventions are accredited to cows? How many posts on this message board or any other are typed by walruses?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Animals experience value, same as us. Morality is about managing value. I would not say we are superour to animals, but if it's me against a mosquito, I will harm the mosquito.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

The only reason a human life is of any greater value is because we, as humans, place that value there.

If that were the case we would prosecute any animal for murder if they killed a human. But of course killing a human is only a crime when commited by another human.

But how can we compare our morality -a human construct- with that of other species?

Hmm ... that depends where we think morality comes from. I'm not sure it's an entirely human contruct.

I believe our responsibility does not stem from a moral subjective, but from our placement in an order. We have the capacity to do these things - to care for the welfare of Earth and other species - not because we are 'more morally upstanding", but because we have taken the place of this position. We have advanced far enough that we, as a species, are able to influence the environment as such - a consequence of our continued expanding and colonizing combined with our advanced capacities in other areas.

Are you arguing that "We understand how the environment works, therefore we should take care of it?" Because if so then most animals would have the same responsibilities as humans - many animals have a deep intimate knowledge of their environment, deeper than humans have, but they don't have the same obligations to the planet and to other species that humans do.

 

[AlexBP]

According to which standard? Oh, that's right: the human standard!

But why should that be some kind of absolute standard of greatness?


It isn't.

Humans are animals, because humans make this classification. Humans are not animals, because again humans make that classification. There is no absolute standard. There is no absolute "higher" or "lower". There is only difference.

Humans are the only existing biological organisms that are... human. In the same way, ants are the only existing biological organisms that are antish. Humans are extremly bad at being ants, and vice versa.

So on the antish classification (if ants did such a human thing as classifying) humans would be "lower" than ants.

But ants don't do such a thing as classifying, do they? You're dismissing my argument on the grounds that it's a human standard and not a universal standard, but you're not saying what standard you'd use instead. The only standards existing are God's standard and a human standard. (You presumably don't care for God's standard.) So if you don't employ a human standard, doesn't that mean that you'll cease to exist intellectually at all?

Think about this. You dismiss my argument on the grounds that I'm using a human standard rather than a universal standard. According to your own logic, shouldn't you be dismissed for using a human standard rather than a universal standard. After all, rabbits don't demand a universal standard for their arguments. Porcupines don't complain that a certain standard is unique to one species.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Are you arguing that "We understand how the environment works, therefore we should take care of it?" Because if so then most animals would have the same responsibilities as humans - many animals have a deep intimate knowledge of their environment, deeper than humans have, but they don't have the same obligations to the planet and to other species that humans do.

That is not what I said.
I stated that we have the capacity, the ability, to do so. And that we gained that capacity by exploiting our abilities, over time, to influence environment more than other animals - look at our use of nature.

Sure, other animals have an innate sense of environment, often far more so than ourselves, but lack a capacity (both the physical resource utilization and the mental advancement to then put it in place) to do so. We on the other hand do have that capacity.

Our responsibility arises from our very use of our environment. We farm and destroy land, we develop land and throw off balances of prey-predator, we minimize species populations that conflict with us and our livestock and our farms. The list goes on of the uses and misuses of environment -our influence on it- that we take part in. So we have the responsibility to repair that land and environment that we use (or misuse, in many cases).
Both in our interest and in the greater interest of the ecosystem as a whole.

 

[Freodin]

If you had an animal's body and brain you would not be able to type, nor watch a video, etc... If all of us had only animal brains and animals bodies then nobody would ever have invented computers, videos, or anything else. How many patents are held by monkeys? How many inventions are accredited to cows? How many posts on this message board or any other are typed by walruses?

You are still missing the point.

All inventions are made by biological entities possessing an animal's body and an animal's brain. But not all animals are monkeys, cows or walruses.

Some animals are humans.

 

[Freodin]

But ants don't do such a thing as classifying, do they? You're dismissing my argument on the grounds that it's a human standard and not a universal standard, but you're not saying what standard you'd use instead. The only standards existing are God's standard and a human standard. (You presumably don't care for God's standard.) So if you don't employ a human standard, doesn't that mean that you'll cease to exist intellectually at all?

Well, you don't know if ants do anything like that, or anything comparable to that. You just assume that they don't. (Well, I do assume the same, but I don't try to derive an absolute standard from that.)

But just imagine that they did. Humans could argue that they are "higher" because they have literature and inventions and religion and stuff. Ants could argue that they are higher, because they don't need any of that stuff.

For a human, it is good to have that. For an ant, it is not. They are different. Ants are indeed inferior to humans at all the things that humans do. Humans on the other hand are horrible at the things ants do.

It is only human self-importance that assumes that everyone and everything should be human as well. They made God a human and try to do the same with the universe.

Think about this. You dismiss my argument on the grounds that I'm using a human standard rather than a universal standard. According to your own logic, shouldn't you be dismissed for using a human standard rather than a universal standard. After all, rabbits don't demand a universal standard for their arguments. Porcupines don't complain that a certain standard is unique to one species.

No, the problem is that there isn't a universal standard. So you cannot use one. So you have to use a human one.

But you have to be careful to understand what to use your human standard on.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

That is not what I said.

My mistake.

Our responsibility arises from our very use of our environment. We farm and destroy land, we develop land and throw off balances of prey-predator, we minimize species populations that conflict with us and our livestock and our farms. The list goes on of the uses and misuses of environment -our influence on it- that we take part in. So we have the responsibility to repair that land and environment that we use (or misuse, in many cases).
Both in our interest and in the greater interest of the ecosystem as a whole.

But again, that's a morality question. Sure we could look after the land and other animals but why should we? From a strictly evolutionary point of view, if organisms don't need to do anything they don't have to do. If it's beneficial to us to destroy something else, so be it. Parasites are everywhere.

That's why I argued morality may be what makes humans superior. It gives us more privilages but it also gives us more responsibilities. We do things because that's the way they should be done, even when it's inconvenient to us.

---------------

I'm gonna whiteknight for AlexBP To put the question simply - do we expect animals to act like us? Is it fair to dress a chimp us in human clothes, give him human snacks and generally treat him as we would a toddler? Or is better to let him live in the jungle (or an enclosure) with other chimps? If animals are our equals why don't we treat as we would treat people?

 

[JadeTigress]

I'm gonna whiteknight for AlexBP To put the question simply - do we expect animals to act like us? Is it fair to dress a chimp us in human clothes, give him human snacks and generally treat him as we would a toddler? Or is better to let him live in the jungle (or an enclosure) with other chimps? If animals are our equals why don't we treat as we would treat people?

In my opinion, treating an animal like a child is disrepectful to the animal. Because I love and respect my cats, I let them act like cats. I don't try to turn them into something that they're not.

Like the little outfits they have for dogs. If you have a bald dog or something and live in a really cold climate, maybe the dog needs a coat if it's going to spend time outside. I'll buy that. But to constantly be dressing up your tiny dog in little dresses and bows is not being respectful of that animal. I'm pretty sure the dog would rather go run around with a toy, or chew on a bone, or do any of those other things that dogs like to do. Wearing clothes is a hindrance.

 

[Exial]

Men are masters over the rest of creation. Just because something is subordinate to you does not mean that they/it are to be treated shamefully or without respect.

I've always found this kind of reasoning to be incredibly arrogant. I cannot understand how anyone can look out at the universe, from the animals and trees to the stars and cosmic phenomenon and declare them to be ours and they declare this by divine warrant no less.

Have you actually looked at this creation in depth? Our own planet can only sustain life for some of time on some of its surface and of that life 99% percent is now extinct including the rest of our homo genus.Trillions of stars across the billions galaxies are obliterating themselves, with one exploding at least every second. Essentially we are a civilisation of very violent advanced apes clinging to a rock that is falling through space in a universe that is in a constant state of decay. Our existence as a race and even life on our planet is balanced on a knife edge. And you want to claim this as the work of a loving creator? You have got to be joking...

 

[mpok1519]

In the scientific classification scheme that's true but in all important contexts humans are not animals.

Except for in the context of science and academia; humans are animals, in that sense. And I can't really think of a higher authority on biological organisms other than science.

I'm sure that you've walked through doors labeled "no animals allowed" on countless occasions. Hence you know that you, who are human, are not an animal.

That sign means "No animals allowed other than humans and humans with assistance animals". Of course humans are animals, even if we humans, don't percieve we are.

Our perceptions don't matter. In the eye of the universe, we are just another biological organism that fits in the kingdom of animalia.

 

[Exial]

Our perceptions don't matter. In the eye of the universe, we are just another biological organism that fits in the kingdom of animalia.

The universe is completely indifferent to our existence. If anything, most of the universe is extremely hostile to life.

 

[mpok1519]

The universe is completely indifferent to our existence. If anything, most of the universe is extremely hostile to life.

You're right; but there are small sections of the universe that are quite hospitable....well, as hospitable as the universe can get, I should say.