Are animals equal or inferior to humans?

[Belk]

I am better then other animals because might makes right and roasted animal is delicious.

 

[Biker Angel]

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
gen 1:28

We humans rule over the animals b/c they don't have an eternal spirit as we do. I believe it is our spirit that give us the abilities that the animals lack like having morality, creativity, intelligence etc.

 

[AlexBP]

My kitten can run much faster than myself. My kitten is my superior in terms of speed.

When asking these questions, one needs to be clear: superior or inferior in what way? With what standard and for what purpose?

Human society is based on the assumption that standards exist. If we teach kids to read and write, we are assuming that literacy is a desirable thing when compared to literacy. Thus human beings are, in that respect, higher than animals, because animals cannot be literate. If we produce artwork, we are assuming that some aesthetic principle is a desirable thing when compared to the absence of such a principle. Thus humans are, in that respect, higher than animals who have no such principle. Likewise with human abilities in regards to establishing justice, government, education, and so forth.

 

[Smileandtheworld]

Human society is based on the assumption that standards exist. If we teach kids to read and write, we are assuming that literacy is a desirable thing when compared to literacy. Thus human beings are, in that respect, higher than animals, because animals cannot be literate. If we produce artwork, we are assuming that some aesthetic principle is a desirable thing when compared to the absence of such a principle. Thus humans are, in that respect, higher than animals who have no such principle. Likewise with human abilities in regards to establishing justice, government, education, and so forth.

This make NO sense.

We teach our cubs to kill effectively, it's the mark of a good *insert predatory animal*... Humans don't do this with thier children, therefore we are superior.

The reasons you have listened for humans being higher than animals is the fact that humans have human traits.

Does no one else see the problem there?

 

[Fenny the Fox]

This make NO sense.

We teach our cubs to kill effectively, it's the mark of a good *insert predatory animal*... Humans don't do this with thier children, therefore we are superior.

The reasons you have listened for humans being higher than animals is the fact that humans have human traits.

Does no one else see the problem there?

It could be argued that such traits -the "human traits" of justice, civilization, education, etc.- are equitable to the increased mental capacity of humans. Thus, it could be argued, that to base superiority on "human traits" is still applicable, if only indirectly, to evolutionary evidence of humans being the higher animal.

 

[Smileandtheworld]

It could be argued that such traits -the "human traits" of justice, civilization, education, etc.- are equitable to the increased mental capacity of humans. Thus, it could be argued, that to base superiority on "human traits" is still applicable, if only indirectly, to evolutionary evidence of humans being the higher animal.

Higher only in so far as it can kill other animals. Evolution doesn't care about how high an animal is, just as long as it survives in its enviroment.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Higher only in so far as it can kill other animals. Evolution doesn't care about how high an animal is, just as long as it survives in its enviroment.

At the basic level, yes. But how does that animal reach this point? The evolutionary pressures can lead to many roads - size, strength, teeth, claws, mental capacity, tool use, disease immunities, adaptation to a niche, etc. etc. etc. The ability of an animal to survive has more than simply hunting/feeding at its basis.

Even given the "how well can it kill" test - we would be at the top. We, due -once again, I point out this phrase- mental capacity and tool use, are able to kill far more effectively than other animals.

 

[Smileandtheworld]

At the basic level, yes. But how does that animal reach this point? The evolutionary pressures can lead to many roads - size, strength, teeth, claws, mental capacity, tool use, disease immunities, adaptation to a niche, etc. etc. etc. The ability of an animal to survive has more than simply hunting/feeding at its basis.

Even given the "how well can it kill" test - we would be at the top. We, due -once again, I point out this phrase- mental capacity and tool use, are able to kill far more effectively than other animals.

I still don't know why the fact that we can kill alot of stuff makes us superior. Superior in a fire-fight.. maybe.. superior as a species overall?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I think part of what makes humans superior is morality. We do what we should do rather than what we can so - evolution doesn't care about morality, it does what is effctive rather than what is right.

This means however that we also bear more responsibility than other animals. We are responsible for the care of the Earth, the welfare of other species, and general good treatment of animals. Cows don't care about climate change, grey squirrels don't care that red squirrels are going extict and spiders don't care about eating their prey alive - nor should they have to.

We're also superior in that a human life is (generally) of greater value than an animal's life. A human may be charged with murder for killing another human, but nobody in their right mind would charge an ape for killing another ape.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

I still don't know why the fact that we can kill alot of stuff makes us superior. Superior in a fire-fight.. maybe.. superior as a species overall?

As I pointed out from the get go, I only rank us as superior in that we have the capacity to have the greatest influence on the environment as a whole. And that we have a greater capacity, as said before now, to survive as a species.

As I said previously:

The ability of an animal to survive has more than simply hunting/feeding at its basis.

I will even go so far as to point out that, thanks once again to where we are mentally and tool wise, we could be sustainable likely with far less of that killing go on.
-Hallmark of advancement - that you can be more productive with lower input.-

 

[Belk]

It could be argued that such traits -the "human traits" of justice, civilization, education, etc.- are equitable to the increased mental capacity of humans. Thus, it could be argued, that to base superiority on "human traits" is still applicable, if only indirectly, to evolutionary evidence of humans being the higher animal.

Evolution does not deal in "higher" or "lower". It simply deals with descended from and better suited to a niche.

 

[Belk]

At the basic level, yes. But how does that animal reach this point? The evolutionary pressures can lead to many roads - size, strength, teeth, claws, mental capacity, tool use, disease immunities, adaptation to a niche, etc. etc. etc. The ability of an animal to survive has more than simply hunting/feeding at its basis.

Even given the "how well can it kill" test - we would be at the top. We, due -once again, I point out this phrase- mental capacity and tool use, are able to kill far more effectively than other animals.

This would make bacteria the top.

 

[selfinflikted]

I think part of what makes humans superior is morality. We do what we should do rather than what we can so - evolution doesn't care about morality, it does what is effctive rather than what is right.

This means however that we also bear more responsibility than other animals. We are responsible for the care of the Earth, the welfare of other species, and general good treatment of animals. Cows don't care about climate change, grey squirrels don't care that red squirrels are going extict and spiders don't care about eating their prey alive - nor should they have to.

We're also superior in that a human life is (generally) of greater value than an animal's life. A human may be charged with murder for killing another human, but nobody in their right mind would charge an ape for killing another ape.

An interesting point about morality, though I would disagree with the last portion:

We're also superior in that a human life is (generally) of greater value than an animal's life

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

 

[Fenny the Fox]

I think part of what makes humans superior is morality. We do what we should do rather than what we can so - evolution doesn't care about morality, it does what is effctive rather than what is right.

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

We're also superior in that a human life is (generally) of greater value than an animal's life. A human may be charged with murder for killing another human, but nobody in their right mind would charge an ape for killing another ape.

But once again, this is based purely on human constructs - those of morality and justice. How can we objectively state that a human life is "worth more" than another animal's life? How do we place a "price" on any life in such a manner?

This means however that we also bear more responsibility than other animals. We are responsible for the care of the Earth, the welfare of other species, and general good treatment of animals. Cows don't care about climate change, grey squirrels don't care that red squirrels are going extict and spiders don't care about eating their prey alive - nor should they have to.

[I moved this out of order to emphasize context of the separate parts.]

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.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Evolution does not deal in "higher" or "lower". It simply deals with descended from and better suited to a niche.

Obviously, higher is a judgment call. And, in this case, can be equated to "better suited to a niche".
Guess that was a bit of a communication breakdown on my part. Sorry. And thanks for pointing it out.

This would make bacteria the top.

Granted, to a degree. Can a single bacteria kill more of us than a single human can them? At times yes.
Can a bacterial species kill more of us than the human race of them? Not as likely - though still possible for many.
But the likelihood of such a case falls when considering that we are continually more able to eliminate even bacteria from our list of "predators".

 

[Belk]

Obviously, higher is a judgment call. And, in this case, can be equated to "better suited to a niche".
Guess that was a bit of a communication breakdown on my part. Sorry. And thanks for pointing it out.

No worries. I figured that was what you meant.

Granted, to a degree. Can a single bacteria kill more of us than a single human can them? At times yes.
Can a bacterial species kill more of us than the human race of them? Not as likely - though still possible for many.
But the likelihood of such a case falls when considering that we are continually more able to eliminate even bacteria from our list of "predators".

It's still an arbitrary factor. I would not claim we are better then animals in any ethical capacity. We simply have the might granted from our large craniums on our side. It looks like that is kind of what you are saying here.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

It's still an arbitrary factor. I would not claim we are better then animals in any ethical capacity. We simply have the might granted from our large craniums on our side. It looks like that is kind of what you are saying here.

In the simplest possible terms, that is it!

 

[AlexBP]

This make NO sense.

We teach our cubs to kill effectively, it's the mark of a good *insert predatory animal*... Humans don't do this with thier children, therefore we are superior.

The reasons you have listened for humans being higher than animals is the fact that humans have human traits.

Does no one else see the problem there?

I sure don't see any problem. The thread is here to debate the question of whether animals are equal to inferior to humans. I've argued for animals being inferior to humans and given, as evidence, a small sampling of the many capabilities humans have that animals don't have any trace of. (Capabilities, incidentally, are not the same thing as traits.) Now you say there's a "problem" because I have mentioned some of the capabilities that humans have. When comparing two things, one has to mention the properties of the two. When comparing humans to animals, one has to mention the properties of humans, as well as the properties of animals. That's something of an exercise in stating the obvious. Why you view it as a devastating rebuttal is not clear to me.

 

[Smileandtheworld]

I sure don't see any problem. The thread is here to debate the question of whether animals are equal to inferior to humans. I've argued for animals being inferior to humans and given, as evidence, a small sampling of the many capabilities humans have that animals don't have any trace of. (Capabilities, incidentally, are not the same thing as traits.) Now you say there's a "problem" because I have mentioned some of the capabilities that humans have. When comparing two things, one has to mention the properties of the two. When comparing humans to animals, one has to mention the properties of humans, as well as the properties of animals. That's something of an exercise in stating the obvious. Why you view it as a devastating rebuttal is not clear to me.

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

 

[Braunwyn]

It seems a little silly to say Humans are more morally considerable because humans can read/write/ do history where animals can not.

It's quite ego-centric to think humans are superior in virtue of having human traits.

I'm not buying the "humans are superior" line at all tbh.

Agreed.

I also agree with a few others here. What's the measurement? I would not save a human over my dog, for example, and I actualize this everyday. She's spoiled, sleeps in my bed, is fed, and I'll easy spend $50 a pop on treats for her. I toil at work and earn money in order to support her. I don't take monies, instead, and give it to a needy human. By this measurement, there is no equality between my dog and most humans. Clearly, she's valued more. I also donate monthly to the ASPCA. I don't give a dime to human strangers. I do volunteer for select humans, tho, via hospice.

I also do not consume mammals (human and non-human).