»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Are Humans Animals?
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Are Humans Animals? |
|
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Are humans animals? |
||
| © Copyright 2007 Essorant - All Rights Reserved | |||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Of course they are at least that. The question is, are they more? Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, What do you mean by "more"? More human as animals, more animal as animals, or more than any/all animals? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, Are we merely animals or are we set apart as being different from the animal world in a significant and unique way? The answer to the question "Are humans merely animals", is no. Most people wouldn't consider themselves to be animals, and would be offended at the thought. Why do you think that is? I was guessing that this was the kind of question you were getting at, rather than simply asking if we shared a comparable biology with the animal world (which we obviously do). Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
If a human is more than an animal for being unique, why isn't a dog more than an animal for being unique as well?
I don't know. Both (other) animals and humans have some behaviours that are beautiful and some that are disgusting. If people are offended at the thought of being animals for unpleasant things animals do at times, then they should also be offended at the thought of being human for the unpleasant things humans do too. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Ah to be Kat for a day: To laze in the sun on the back of the chaise lounge, (without falling off) and to sharpen my claws upon other choice furnishings, preparing myself for the occasional chase of a stray moth who was making its way to the kitchen light. To be delighted to crash all obstacles on the counters and table tops to the floor in pursuit of that moth, and to bestow my catch (with supreme airs to my human) by placing it, gently dead, on her pillow. Such is so, as well as hissing, purring, preening: all in a day's ruling as an aristocat. Or to be Thor for a day: (more precisely, a puppy) To bark incessantly at my tail or my back leg while on my back, rolling in the grass. To chase bugs & birds & cars I know I'll not catch, but as long as they're leaving my territory I've won the game! Everything is game, for my teeth. I'm happy to chew on anything stationary, the lawn furniture, flower pots, trees, tires, skateboards, and the stucco...on the house. I will completely forget how it all gets scattered around me with all innocence in the face of my lady. And when I'm not chewing, I'm digging little holes and rooting with my nose so I can have the perfect hiding spot for my ham bone. And when I ride, you can believe I'm flap-eared and fraggle-faced in the wind--tongue slobber is a given and happily shared, everywhere. I'm not an animal, which has been said, and suitably so, but I do respect the innate abilities in animals, which either endear me to them, fascinate me, or keep me cautiously aware/at bay. Because no matter how supremely sophisticated or civilized I might think I am, an animal can ravage that thought in an instant. Sure, that might be a trait that some humans care to conceal or wield as a phantom tail or devilry, but it mostly makes an ass out of them: not the braying kind, either. Jackasses are quite noble & brave animals. They are raised here for farm work & to protect livestock from wild carnivores. They will attack and kick the jaws right off of them. even a tiny squirrel can sink its teeth into a finger and make a grown man scream like a little girl, which doesn't mean he is a little girl, but understandably his scream is in the human range of reactions. all I know is I care about people & animals, can you tell, yet?  Meerkat Manor anyone? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: From a biological standpoint the answer has to be yes. quote: Surely the questions should be, what is the definition of humans? And, what is the definition of animals? "We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Humans are not animals. We are the bosses of animals. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Of all wild beasts on earth or in sea, the greatest is a woman." -Menander |
||
|
Kalle Member
since 2007-10-15
Posts 89Finland |
I think calling human beings animals is blasphemy People suffer, terribly. Give a Man (Or a Woman) Everything he wants and he is not satisfied. People, humans have a longing for the infinite, because they are part of a stream of externalized life energy and the resting-place of what we call thoughts the inner linings that take place in materia formalized as biological structure, this being the somewhat slower because it has to take place in the part of life, of universe, of reality that has to operate within the limits of Materialized Time And as according to this inner linement, it is, in terms of biology somewhat discriminating, or exclusive in terms of Darwinian misconceptive realization of fragmented understaning of a principle only partly understanded, therefore we are at the Sorry I got alittle lost here, the question is so difficult |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Essorant "Of all wild beasts on earth or in sea, the greatest is a woman." -Menander an opinion is an opinion. It may not be the truth. Menander, whoever he was, he would not say such thing to his mother. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Ess -- Of course humans are animals. Everything else gets tacked on after the fact. It's easy if you just look at animal, vegetable, mineral and figure where we fit. Much of the rest of it is nonsense. Best, Jim |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"It is not natural to see man as a natural product. It is not common sense to call man a common object of the country or the seashore. It is not seeing straight to see him as an animal. It is not sane. It sins against the light; against that broad daylight of proportion which is the principle of all reality. It is reached by stretching a point, by making out a case, by artificially selecting a certain light and shade, by bringing into prominence the lesser or lower things which may happen to be similar." (G.K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man) This is the conclusion of Chesterton, but only after noting that when man is thought of as an animal, he is the most unique ... demanding another category altogether. Try reading his chapter "The Man in the Cave", and you'll see the argument he makes as a whole. Aside from the philosophy, I think you'll find the keen playfulness of the writing a delight. http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/everlasting_man.html#chap-I-i Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Thanks Stephanos. I enjoyed reading the chapter you mentioned.
Can't disagree with these sayings. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, I would encourage you to follow Chesterton's idea one step further. It takes looking at man (for a moment) as a mere animal to see that he is exceptional. The view of this prodigious mammal should make us wonder whether man is unique from a divine perspective ... ie "made in the image of God". It's almost as if he were saying: "It is when I look at it from the perspective of my humanistic antagonists, that I am more convinced than ever of my orthodoxy". And so he takes it from that angle. If we seriously (and not sloppily) consider man as an animal, he becomes much more suspect as an outlander among his fuzzy and feathered neighbors. Glad you enjoyed the read. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I placed an order for the book at abebooks.com about five minutes after reading the first chapter |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, Go ahead and get "Orthodoxy" as well, you won't regret it. Those two books are Chesterton at his best. Orthodoxy may be a little more readable than TEM, simply because in the latter, Chesterton wrote as if we were all as familiar with mythology and history as he was. Lots of passing references to things, in that too-familiar style that irks lay-students like myself. You'll still enjoy them both. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, I am overdue from the last time you recommended Chesterton's "Orthodoxy". I hope to read it eventually. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Late I am, as ever. It strikes me that the question may have become a bit obsolete by this time, since I believe that a substantial portion of the people I know would give me a good argument about the actual status of animals. When I was a kid, there was a very clear demarcation in my mind between man and animal, a gulf of unbridgeable proportions. I confess that that gulf has all but vanished for me in my relationships with dogs. I've never met dolphins or orcas, but I have gone whale watching. Some of the other people on the boat were utterly unmoved, but I could feel a sense of these big guys as they were moving around us and of the rule-driven behavior that seemed to keep them from smashing us to flinders on a whim. They stayed with us for quite a while. A number of other folks felt it too, a common feeling of being included in something larger than yourself. It was spooky. The more I know about chimps and gorillas, the more they seem different than the notion of animals that I grew up with. I was always cautions not to try to make animals into more than they were—anthropomorphize them—make them into pseudo people. To tell the truth, there are some dogs I know that are a lot more human than a lot of people I've met. The flip side is also true, I guess. Don't try to turn people into the lowest biological common denominator, the animal organism—zoomorphize—them. I guess the gap that seemed so terribly clear when I was a kid has all but vanished for me today. If only they didn't taste do good. Not dogs, cattle. I've never eaten dogs. Never eaten a lot of different kinds of meat. No krill, no snake, no goose, no moose or aardvaark... The list goes on. Not that I feel guilty or anything. no no, I wouldn't say that. No no. No road kill, never a puppy or a cat. no cute little bunnies... Never mind. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Do you think other animals have a "sense of humour"? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. In his book “ The Ascent of Man” Jacob Bronowski remarks that humans are the only species that can have sex face to face and it was his hypothesis that this was so they can discriminate as to who they are having sex with. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Essorant, Some folks wonder whether this animal has a sense of humor, either. I've definitely known dogs who've spent time laughing at me, and don't get me started on squirrels. Dolphins are actually supposed to have a sense of humor. As for Huan Yi and sex, Bronowski may be right about possible sexual positions. But there are species that pair-bond as well or better than humans that seem to recognize each other well enough. Greylag geese, if faulty memory serves, mate for life. And as a former parrot person (owner, I mean, not being an enormous beaked and feathered amazonian/human hybrid myself, last time I checked) I know that they grown very attached to specific people, and quite jealous of their relationships with anybody else. Animals are quite capable of making relationships with people—significant relationships with people—that are unreachable or are withdrawn from relationship with other people. I've seen this with elderly and with depressed patients, and occasionally with fairly withdrawn psychotic patients. My observations were that these relationships were emotional and generally satisfying in both directions. What's your thinking? |
||
|
Joe Crow Member
since 2007-12-18
Posts 66Indiana |
I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all [is] vanity. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Has anyone noticed how we strive to fit reality to our words . . . . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Obviously we are setting aside harsh differences, only to acknowledge that there is yet a common bond. That man and other creatures are sharply different from each other, and that man seems to surpass other creatures in uniqueness in many ways, doesn't change just because we acknowledge that man is a branch of the Animal Kingdom. I think both distinctions are important. [This message has been edited by Essorant (02-17-2008 12:21 AM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Essorant, I am not sure if the "we" in your first sentence, Essorant, means those Folk who talk here or Homo Sapiens and other branches of the animal kingdom. If it is amongst our human selves, we differ, how and what are the "harsh" differences? I'm unclear. And are you saying that we are acknowledging a common bond, we humans, in our views about animals? Or that we humans are acknowledging, commonly, a bond with animals that we have (somehow) decided are different than we are? Perhaps less tasty, or more so? Or that, somehow, we and the animals have reached an accommodation? The entire structure of this sentence leaves me puzzled. I think you may be saying something I could agree with, but I can't tell for sure. As for man and other creatures being sharply different from each other, I would have to ask, Compared to what? Compared to things that aren't in many cases 98 and 99% genetically identical? The word "sharply" may be good rhetoric, but may not quite pull its weight otherwise. In the same way, man does not "surpass" other beings in uniqueness. You have set up an arbitrary scalar model for comparison. To say any single being can be measured for uniqueness doesn't fit such a model; it's simply more anthropocentrism. I see no real distinctions to be made here. The question, "Are Humans Animals?" seems to me to be difficult because of how we think of animals and how we feel entitled to treat them. Thus far we have managed to distance ourselves enough from Animals to convince ourselves that our treatment of them is not an extension of an essentially suicidal agenda for ourselves and our kids. All my best, BobK. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Bob, I was talking about "we" in the thread, that seemed to agree for the most part that humans are animals. The common bond I meant is being part of a family in which we are related to the other animals. The "sharply" different is in our art, civilization, and the extent to which we use language and symbolic behaviour, which completely surpass the other animals. Did you ever see any of the other animals create Romes? Any of the other animals writing poetry or drawing pictures, or practicing religion, or cataloguing special events of their lives? How about wearing jewellry or dressing in clothes made by their own hands or by a machine they made? Being a human naturally makes us human-centric to some extent, but that doesn't mean we can't clearly see the evidences and truth in a comparison between humans and animals. I am willing to say humans are animals and are related to other animals, but I am also willing to acknowledge how much they stand out from other animals in a way that no other animals do. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "Are Animals Humans?" . |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Huan Yi Yes. Animals in that particular shape we call "humans", are indeed humans. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Essorant, As always, thoughtful; and thank you for that. It's always a pleasure to talk with somebody who doesn't simply react reflexively. I believe we are all animals in this together. You believe we're part of the family. To my mind that's close enough to establish a large area of agreement. We do have and use art, language and symbolic behavior. The degree to which we are civilized is open to interpretation. I believe we have always been too free in granting ourselves slack in that area, when the evidence to the contrary is ignored like an elephant in a phone booth. I would probably agree with you about the nature of art, except I don't know enough about the possibility of aesthetics in non-human animals. What is the role of aesthetic in the success of a bird call, for example. and how would you define that? There are male birds who build nests out of gewgaws who offer them for the judgement of the females; is art and aesthetics of value here? How would one tell? The question is at least open to some interesting discussion. Language becomes a like problem. Ants building a tunnel from two ends have been observed meeting in the middle. There is some sort of communication here that must be evaluated and acted upon, even when the ants are several inches apart. Is there some sort of "language" or proto-language at use here? Seems unlikely, but it is certainly a possibility. How do birds know when to turn en masse when in a flock more swiftly than line of sight and neural reaction time would allow them to do so? The same question applies with schooling behavior in fish. Symbolic behavior, such as sign language, has been learned by chimps, who can understand it and communicate with it, and who will teach to to their kids. I don't know that we understand the nuances of other animal communication well enough to know if there's symbolic behavior involved or not at some points along the spectrum. It is comfortable to assume there is not for us. It was also comfortable for us to assume that the retarded did not feel pain for many years. I worked for a year in a residential school and saw the results of that particular change in understanding. I have never seen a Rome created by an animal. On the other hand, I have seen organizations as large an complex in the form of ant colonies, coral reefs and such. Cities are a recent invention, I should remind you, in human history, perhaps 10,000 years old. Before that, for the majority of our time on earth, we were hunter-gatherers, and we ourselves are but poorly suited for city life and the adaptations it forces on us. A reef, a flock, a hive or a school is much better run as an organization. It doesn't require all the slaves that Rome did. quote: As for clothes and jewels or hands or machines, Nope, I never did, though I did mention the birds who loved there gewgaws. On the other hand, it's not clear they actually needed any of these things either. I'm not terribly good at living in boiling water with loads of sulphuric acid in it, myself. Nor am I happy at swimming around 12,000 feet underwater, looking for tasty squid or zooplankton. I personally don't see much call for that sort of thing. It's not in my job description. With the amount of fat I've got on me, you'd think I wouldn't need any clothes, either, but my wife tells me otherwise. Party-pooper. As for pictures, poems and calenders, not to mention religion, I simply don't know. Many of them seem to manage complex migration cycles fairly well. My father-in-law, who lives in Buffalo, has never been able to get to Miami for the winter, or to California. If you mean drawing and writing, I'd have to agree with you. I don't think Homer could write, nor could the Beowulf poet. We have no idea what those whales and dolphins are saying to each other now, do we? Though frankly, I think my point there is awfully weak. I'll have to think more on it. The point of all this is, that you're holding up human beings as a yardstick. Now I'm a human being, and I happen to like being the yardstick. But looking back on everything so far, while that positions done us a got of good as a species, it's also gotten us in a lot of trouble. I mean A LOT of trouble. I happen to admire the ecological model of biology, the web of life, of which humanity is a part, and every time our mistreatment of other species knocks one off, we've cut another strand in the web that supports us. So, are humans animals? You bet we are. We can't afford not to be. Our species is on the line if we don't acknowledge it and act accordingly. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I think ecological responsibility is only maintained in the awareness that we are more than mere animals, since there is no evidence in animals of moral critique of their own behaviors. There are no prairie-dog councils about the ecological effects of excessive hole-digging. And lemmings do not question the value of self-induced genocide. Of course, one may also say that this is partly due to their comparatively benign habits, being unable to produce and consume fossil fuels, or harness nuclear energy, or manufacture plastics and a plethora of harmful substances. But then again, that is also proof (to me) of the gulf between humankind and animalkind ... We are godlike in our destructions as well as our ingenuities. Animals also have their wonders, and I don't mean to belittle them ... It's just that the ability to wonder is perhaps the greatest wonder of all, and I think (for all practical purposes) that is the jurisdiction of man. Stephen |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/592352.stm . |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
John, what do you think the significance to your link is, in reference to the present conversation. Help me out. Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"in the awareness that we are more than mere animals" That is because not being merely an animal is merely part of being an animal, Stephanos. No animal is just an animal, and that is why no animal is officially called only "animal". A dog is more than just an animal, he is a dog, and even as a dog, he is more than just a dog, he is a kind of dog, and a dog with special looks, special personality, a special name, etc. It would be just as incorrect to call it just "animal" or "dog", as it would be to call a human only "animal" or "human". |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
quote: ? A dog=animal+dog A dog=dog+C+D+E+F+H (anything but human) so animal+dog=dog+C+D+E+F+H Animal=C+D+E+F+H so animal is not human. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. There is a constant attempt to draw some sort of equivalence which I think is a function of the safe distance from other species. People in Africa know that given a chance an animal will kill you. In the West where apart from house pets we have little inter-action we romanticize everything from lions, tigers, and bears to killer whales. To me there's not one other species on the planet worth the life of a single human child. . |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant quote: Essorant, I am referring to what separates humanity from ALL of the rest of the animals. If you don't want to make that distinction, that's fine, though I think you're refusing to see something. The Imago Dei was not given to animals, as stately and wonderous as they are. Animals have never ventured into the realms of art, religion, philosophy, self reflection, or anything of that sort. That is simply fact. You may call it an insignificant fact, but it is striking to me. You seem to think that "mere" must mean to degrade. But it does not. "This is a mere diamond, I cannot cook with it, because it is not a pot." is a perfectly sensible statement. And though I AM making a hierarchical statement in saying that humankind is no "mere animal", it is not meant in the fashion that you seem to be taking it. For you Ess, what would make it okay to sell a cow in a meat market, but not a young lad? What is the divide for you, and why? BTW, John, I agree with you, in your valuation. Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephanos, I've had the conversation with you about your use of the word "mere" as well. Despite your well reasoned explanations—and you are most always well reasoned—you may perhaps have somehow freighted to your use of the word with an unintended condescension. The word does carry that meaning with it, and as one of the preferred options. Your presentation of the use of "mere" is for a fairly specialized use of the word by fairly educated folk; in general usage, the word is used in a dismissive sense. Your examples tend toward the fastidious. To my ear. Huan Yi is, I believe, accurate in his first paragraph. The second paragraph does not follow from the first, though it sounds as though it should. And it provides a lot of problems in its reasoning. Take zoo-plankton, for example; no zoo-plankton, in all probability no human kids at all for lack of sufficient oxygen levels. Nor do I see very much effort being put into the preservation of human life in this society other than that of the folks who don't have it yet. If the question were, instead, not trading entire species of animals for single children, a very comfortable because entirely theoretical statement calling for no personal effort, what if the question were trading the education, health,welfare of all and the lives of a substantial number of the children in the world in return for 20% of Huan Yi's annual income. That is a bargain we could very likely pull off. Or, what if we made the bargain Huan Yi was proposing more realistic and ask instead that we treat ourselves and our world with the same respect that we'd give a decent car. Why not think about giving ourselves a tune-up? What's the best level of everything that the planet can carry. We can stack it toward the humans if we want, we're doing the counting after all. Simply let's find the level that let's the kids grow up healthy and have their kids healthy. If we want to expand our population, we'll need to figure out what to do with them now. Let's not go around holding kids hostage for species of animals or the other way around. From baseball we've learned there all all sorts of things you can do between a strike out and an all bases loaded home run. Why is it that we pretend that in problem solving there are only two answers? Give me that species, Staphanos, for me to turn into mulch or I'll shoot this kid! Did I mention how small and helpless he is? And that the species is MAN EATING CROCKS that probably enjoys kids anyway, just for the fun of it? And that they make good looking belts and that they taste just like chicken. But now I'm just getting silly. The Crocks would probably buy kiddy filets, though, and not think twice about it. I mean protein's protein. Soylant Green Kiddy Crunch, we could market it as a breakfast cereal—Now in Extra Crispy. No No Bob; this time you've gone too far. Too far I tell you. My best to all, BobK. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Sorry, Stephen, that's not fact but, at best, conjecture and, at worst, assumption. Until and unless we can communicate with the higher order animals, we can't know anything of the sort. It's probably a good guess, I'll grant you, but it's still a guess. BTW, every dog I've ever had in my life was devoutly religious. Each of them worshipped me. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
By creation, animal and human are different. Animal belongs to the lower class. Human is the manager. By evolution. From non-biological /biological plant/animal animal/human are different in quality. And human is still the higher class. If we can not put ourselves up into space to become God, why shall we lower ourselves to lower level?  quote: Why? whatever they have if they have any is at their animal level. Elephant paints; Parrot talks; monkey does tricks and dog worships, all at their lower animal level. Can elephant design a website? Can parrot give a lecture? Has ever monkey work like a magician? Dog could worship any edible  quote: What have they done to you!!!!  [This message has been edited by TomMark (02-21-2008 11:56 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron: quote: And yet it is as good a guess as any we make. Ventures into such realms (by animals) would yield some sort of evidence or artifact don't you think? It least what we see lines up with my conviction that people have a divinely ordained distinction from the animal world. The rest is all conjecture. Ron, I would argue from a catish standpoint ... As my cat is like a Roman ruler of old, who demands sacrifice. And Bob, I never denied that my use of "mere" involved an expression of hierarchy. I'm only insisting it is not to degrade. It's simply that when I use such terminology, no one argues against the idea I speak of, but rather chides me for insulting animals (or something like that). But the fact is, as long as eating at Chik-fil-a is even halfway acceptable by you, the hierarchy exists for you as well.Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Stephanos: quote: This is a distinction I would suggest is beyond the range of most of us. At best, you'd want to make it to somebody who considered themselves thoughtful. I spent most of my adult life working with crazy folks or relatives of crazy folks who didn't have time for such. Last time I tried to make a distinction like that got me, quite literally, a sore jaw. It didn't matter very much what sort of baseball it was I thought I threw, they reacted to what it was they thought they were catching; and it wasn't a baseball. There may be reasons that you are not being chided for the ideas that you are defending. An attack upon the subject—it would be ad hominem were it a person the attack were directed against—changes focus rather abruptly from the original discussion. The fact the the discussion has now taken a new direction does not mean that you have been correct in your prior reasoning. You may have been, you may not have been: That discussion has been derailed. An assumption of victory is impossible to justify, even if it might be correct in the long run, because the discussion has been sabotaged. It has not been resolved. The discussion has instead been disrupted and the point has been lost. Stephanos: quote: I don't know. I've been fighting with myself about my diet for 30 years. I try to stay away from red meat; mostly I do. Mostly I avoid chicken and fish, though I'm not very good at it. Cheese and carbohydrates and a few vegetables and as many of the basic desert groups as I can find. A pound of beef equals 12 pounds of vegetables and grain. A pound of pork, about three or four. I'm not sure about chicken. But if I'm eating the beef, then I may be taking away somebody else's subsistence vegetables. This doesn't mean I don't do it sometimes, but it does mean I do it a lot less than I used to. I don't think this means that I think of animals as "mere" things to be disposed of at my whim. I think this means I'm an idiot who can't get his behavior in line with his values as much as he wants to. I think this means that I've failed in some fairly basic ways. I don't know what Chik-fil-a is. Probably some fast food chicken place. I don't go to them, but that confers nothing on me. If you go to them, good luck to you. But I think what we do to animals is not so good. I think so because I studied biology from the ecological perspective in high school way back in the early sixties. It became very clear to me that anything you do to the ecological web is something you do to yourself. It's not all that different that the Do Unto Others theme that runs through world religions. Somehow people stop thinking about this when it comes to the earth and to animals, but we depend on each other to survive. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
BobK: quote: And I was quite sure I had. quote: Bob, if you'll read carefully, I wrote that no one was arguing against my point, not that no one was chiding. Rather than hearing in return a defense or explanation of human/animal egalitarianism, I have only gotten something that amounts to "you shouldn't talk bad about animals", which seems to be quite a misunderstanding of my position here. I'm not sure I agree about your assessment of the original discussion. "Are Humans Animals" is a direct question of whether humans can justify any hierarchical view pertaining to themselves and the animal kingdom. So, while it may not be the only thing interesting to talk about in that question, it is surly not veering from it. quote: I'm not sure where you're going here. I wasn't declaring "victory", as if my goal were to "win" rather than to express. My only statement was that my points have yet to be countered, or seriously engaged. quote: Did I ever say so? What I said is that a hierarchy exists for you also, as evidenced by the fact that you do not consider killing and eating animals a mortal sin ... at least not at all in the same way you would consider me purely wicked if I went out and killed an 8 year old boy simply for my culinary pleasure. quote: Oh I don't think you're an idiot. I personally feel that you shouldn't feel guilty for eating animals, since it is God's provision, and has been sanctified for the human conscience by his word. That doesn't mean to be careless or to lose a respect for animals. But it does mean that Animals are not so soulish (or human), as to present a moral horror at their simple killing and eating. I personally think you can still thank God for a meal, when it includes meat. If people feel otherwise, and want to be Vegan then I respect that. I'll just never believe it is the moral equivalent of killing a person for a good dinner. But that really brings me again to my point, if one really wants to argue the egalitarianism of animals and humans, then he should view murder and hunting as no different ... and be consistent with that view. If you really feel that way, I wouldn't hang around me if I were you. I would be bad company indeed ... Though I did eat a meatless pizza tonight. Maybe my wife is forcing me to reform from my twisted carnivorous life. quote: Actually experts agree that often hunting is good for the ecology. It is actually a tool for wildlife management in many areas of the U.S. Just some "food" for thought. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos,
Remember I said that I want to make the distinction that man surpasses other animals in certain respects, because I believe that to be a true distinction. Man is the craftiest of all creatures. Craftiness is his key. But my problem is only where you say such a thing seperates us from animals. As if the head needs to be seperate from the body to be a surpassing part of the body. As if it floats above the body without a neck attaching it to the less intelligent parts of the body. Certainly you should see the problem with that Stephanos. I believe Man is surpassing among animals, but not that he is seperate and not one of them. Not just because the evolutionary chain of life on earth fastens him to and from the animal kingdom, but because the unity of the whole Universe binds all things. Why can't you accept that extremely different things can still be united and related?
That is because humans are the kind of animal we are. Humans are most important to humans, therefore we preserve and protect us foremost. But we are also omnivores and therefore it is evolved that we live off other animals as well. That doesn't make preying on certain other animals a pleasant thing, it just makes it understandable and somewhat justifiable. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I think animals could be just as easily classed as more than mere humans, after all you can load the criteria for hierarchical placement in numerous ways to put one above the other. Blue whales might not paint many works of art but they can hold their breath a darn sight longer than Picasso, Rembrandt and Van Gogh put together. Then again the whole question of hierarchy is a deviation from the original topic and doesn’t prove that humans aren’t animals, at best it only suggests reasons why humans are better in some respects than their animal cousins. Is a tiger and animal? - Yes. Does claiming it isn’t because it’s higher up some hypothetical hierarchical ladder than a snail sound like a reasonable argument? Humans are animals, they might be better in some respects than other animals but they’re still animals. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: But Essorant, a head IS separate (by way of distinction, or distinguishment) from the rest of the body, in more ways than one. For one it is only the "head" that has the unique ability to think and direct and perceive all the other parts. By "separation" I never meant total independence, or abandonment, or whatever else you think I mean. To be "set apart" does not always have to be taken in a negative sense. quote: I never exactly said that "he is not one of them", only that "he is more than them all". Or ... that he is different from all of them in a superlative way in which none of them are different from one another. It's as if I were arguing that the cube is greater than two-dimensional shapes, and you responded by pointing out the differences between flat shapes. The cube is different in a totally different way than all the shapes differ from each other. Or If I argued that a C major chord was greater than all the notes of the scale, your pointing out that notes of the scale differ in pitch from each other would be to miss the drama and new complexity of harmony. Those are only analogies, but something like that is afoot when it comes to humanity, and all of the other animals. quote: Not to raise up the evolution debate again, but this is granting the theory of common ancestry which I find to be doubtful. But I am quite sure that we are united with the animals by way of design and kinship of our common author. So either way, your point is taken. I am not denying kinship, or even a kind of community. quote: I do think they are united and related. If you think I believe otherwise, you've misunderstood me. quote: But if you really believe a human being to be nothing more than another animal (and before you object to my saying 'nothing more', remember that you do eat the other kinds), this is quite arbitrary. And either the moral horror that comes to mind when someone kills another person (for sport or for lunch) is fustian imagination, or our relative peace with killing and eating other animals is really reprehensible and atrocious. quote: Again, I doubt the evolutionary assumption, but I'll go with it for the sake of argument. May not the 'other animals' that we were evolutionarily conditioned to live off of, include humans sometimes? Why wouldn't this also be "understandable and somewhat justifiable"? And remember that your use of "not pleasant" lands you into the arena of subjective taste and preference, not right and wrong. Why would the killing and eating of a fellow human be so radically different than a simple disagreement of druthers, in your mind? Grinch: quote: I wonder if you see the irony that YOU are the only one out of them all that can load the criteria. quote: Well, the advent of the airplane and the submarine, also illustrates a power of imitation and compensation which no other animal even touches. We don't have to be born as whales and birds, we become them through creative processes. quote: You're right. A cube is technically still a two dimensional square ... At least it contains that much geometrically and ontologically, though it is a great deal more. Humans are, in that sense, animals. As always, interesting interchange, Stephen |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Who built that 747 I see flying across the sky? . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I’m not sure we are the only ones Stephen but even if we are the ability to recognise the possible criteria to judge hierarchy is still only one of the possible criteria available. quote: You’re confusing the ability “Use of tools” with the ability “Flying” and “Holding your breath underwater” , they are different categories - separate criteria. Humans can mimic natural flight using tools (planes etc) but do not posses a natural capacity to fly. Don’t believe me? How tall is a termite Stephen? Is a termite seven foot tall if it lives at the top of a seven foot termite mound? [This message has been edited by Grinch (02-24-2008 10:56 AM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos quote: That confirms my point Stephanos. Even though you use the word seperate, there is no true seperation. There are just extreme differences and distinctions. I do think the word "seperate" is used more to imply a very harsh or negative difference or distinction. For example we wouldn't refer to a man's head as being still attached by a greater unity, after he is beheaded. The incorrectness of "seperate" to the universe, is appropriate for the local extremity of a physical difference. But here in my cold philosophical perspective, I look at things from the unity which still binds all things, and will say that the difference between life and death, is still not a seperation, but just an extreme difference. We die because we change or are changed so much, not because we become seperated from life. Without the "dead" universe that makes up the majority of the universe, this little speck of life could never come about. We are more dependant on dead things for life, than we are on living things. The "dead" atmosphere itself is what allows for any of these things even to begin to begin any of the earliest and crudest forms of life, let alone civilization. There is no life and conciousness if the "dead" and "thoughtless" atmosphere is no longer accomodating. All this is to say, even though you argue that different living things are seperate, I will argue even beyond that and say that even the living and unliving are not seperate. quote: It may be true that humans do some better things than animals. But it is true also that certain humans do better things than certain other humans. Do you think those humans are then superior as beings because they do better things? Chaucer is a better human because he wrote better poems? The Pope is a better human because he follows his religion better? The president is a better human being than all of us because he is better at running the country? quote: Because our instincts generally urge us to preserve ourselves foremost, and therefore our civilization does too. Our instincts and civilization together establish an organization that tries its hardest to preserve and protect ourselves foremost. We try to preserve humans most because we are humans and therefore we are more important to ourselves than any other animal. We also try to preserve other animals to a great extent, but still a lesser extent, only because they are less important to us. It makes sense to say that humans are most important to humans. But it doesn't make sense to say humans are most important to the animal kingdom or to the world. Especially when if the humans were erased, the rest of the animalkingdom and the world would not only continue well enough, but in many ways be healthier and saved from many hazards that come with the civilizations of humans. [This message has been edited by Essorant (02-24-2008 11:21 PM).] |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
quote: How significant this sentence is. In reality we do not call ourselves dirt just because we have the same element. We don't call ourselves trees because we all grow upward or if we crawl we don't call ourselves ground cover. We don't call ourselves monkeys when we love fruits and we don't call ourselves crocodile when we are cold blooded. In reality we tell one thing form another by grouping or categorizing them, for a purpose of saying we have extreme differences. I believe creation which does not give a confusion of animal and human. If evolutionary view of the biological world, consider that human being are animals because human being were in the biological evolution chain. Do you think that All animals were still evolve including humans? But do you think that right start from using tools, human have stopped a lot of evolution process? Some people might think that some part of whale were better than us. So some of us might just get evolve to have whale's lungs and that blowing hole. But many, because of the submarine, has lost the drive of longing for a better lung. same as wings.We group our surroundings is not only because we need to tell one from another but for the priority things. When an eagle is a attacking your chicks, a wolf seducing your pigs, a tiger shines her staring eyes on human children, we have the immediate judgment on what we should do. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Saying that a human is an animal is the same in principle as saying a man is a human. Just as the specific being (a man) is part of a larger family (humans), the specific family (humans) is also part of a larger family (animals). |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
quote: human/animal and man/human I don't see the similarity. Tell me, sir Essorant, where does the word "animal" originate? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Animal comes from Latin animal "a living being". I think the noun came from a substantive usage of the adjective animalis "of air, of life, animate" formed from the word anima "breath", and the suffix -al meaning "of or of the nature of". Our English word deer has similar origins, implying "breath" From Etymonline.com: Deer "O.E. deor "animal, beast," from P.Gmc. *deuzan, the general Gmc. word for "animal" (as opposed to man), but often restricted to "wild animal" (cf. O.N. dyr, O.H.G. tior, Ger. Tier, Goth. dius), from PIE *dheusom "creature that breathes," from *dheus- (cf. Lith. dusti "gasp," dvesti "gasp, perish;" O.C.S. dychati "breathe;" cf. L. animal from anima "breath"), from base *dheu-. Sense specialization to a specific animal began in O.E. (usual O.E. for what we now call a deer was heorot), common by 15c., now complete. Probably via hunting, deer being the favorite animal of the chase (cf. Skt. mrga- "wild animal," used especially for "deer"). Deer-lick is first attested 1778, in an American context; deerskin is from 1396. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Do you think that the "living being" including plants or stars which also have a life? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
What word would you use then specially for those creatures that share important features such as brains, eyes, ears, nose, voice, etc., distinct from living things that don't have such features? Would there be a debate if we used a narrower word such as "mammals"? The only problem with that word is that it excludes many animals that share in common having the kind of features mentioned above. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
All living beings can be divided into groups based on different features, or scientifically, or anything. I choose the category: human/animal. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
What about a group based on similar features, such as all having brains, noses, eyes, ears etc? Don't you think that kind of group is important? Humans and other animals are already named for their differences: they are called "humans", "dogs", "cats" "crocodiles" etc. But what name would you give them as a group of beings that share many similar features? |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
quote: Do you mean to group them based on anatomic features? esp the head? But the most distinguished difference between human and animals is on the brain function. You may call all CPU+screen a computer but you wouldn't call a primary circuit a computer. Even a calculator is not called a computer. quote: Dear Sir Essorant, I can understand your thought that human belongs to animals based on their similarity in physical structure, esp head. (do we look like a fish? ) But I see that the similarity does not bring out a similar level intelligence....very different. So, I say human does not belong to animal group. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Tom, Why stop there? If you’re categorising animals by intelligence each type could have it’s own group but then of course none would be animals the whole category of animal would be redundant. You’d also run the risk of some odd classifications - is a dumb snail a clever worm based on intelligence alone? A more serious quandary is apparent if someone uses your classification technique and focuses it onto the group you’ve designated as human beings. There’s a danger they could be drawn to labels like normal or elite to segregate differing levels of intelligence which opens the door to the use of the label sub-human for those with the lowest intelligence - or perhaps they might re-use the vacant classification and simply call those of a lower intelligence “animals“. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
quote: Because I reached to the end of my wisdom. quote: It is always the way that humans are studying animals with all kind of tools but not animals to human. quote: You, Grinch, are trying to label me as Hitler .  I say that human is not animal not because their intelligence (only I try to reason with Sir Essorant). It is based on the origin...human beings are created for manage animals. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Ah, I see so which order were they created in? Was man created first then the animals or the other way around? Were all the animals created at once or was there an order to their creation? Were worms created before or after tigers? How long did it take? When did this creation occur? |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
then you tell me, why humans were animals? Grinch? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Are my questions too difficult? Tom? |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
see how smart a human being can be??!!!! yes sir. They are way tooo difficult to answer. I have no answers. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
But failing to answer your question does not change my thought Ha! |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: It doesn’t explain or validate it either. You don‘t need to answer my questions Tom and I don‘t need to continue asking them, I simply believed you wanted a discussion. I guess I was wrong. Have a nice thread. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
I do, I asked you why you think humans are animals? is you opinion same as Sir Essorant? Anatomic similarity? You did not answer me. Dog has eyes but what please that sense is when it sees bones, right? so still different. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Essorant, I see that this discussion again bogs down upon your tendency toward monism. If you cannot think that living things and non-living things are "separate" in a striking and absolute way, then it probably won't be profitable for us to discuss any absolute and momentous differences between animals and humans. For you all things are one, including absurdities, and I cannot accept this. Although if you are going to be totally consistent, you need to stop suggesting that someone else may be wrong or mistaken, for wrong and right in your world has to be essentially the same. quote: No, it is the opposite, I think humans do better things because they are superior, because of their nature. I have been told that humans are uniquely made in the image of God, and what I see confirms that amazing statement. I am not just observing behaviors, and by a process of induction concluding that man must be totally unique (in a totally unique way). Though one may reasonably do so, as Chesterton pointed out that man is most divine when considered as a mere animal. quote: The very complex question of what makes a human a better human is not the thrust of this thread. But suffice it to say that it is not so obvious to me that all humans are equal (the most beneficent attitudes toward others, still bears this out in practice). Though all humans should be treated with dignity simply because they are human, and made in the image of God. quote: You repeat only what is obvious. You've described what I've asked you to defend. My question to you was: If there is nothing of momentous import dividing humans from animals, then why is this radical difference in treatment justified. And your answer is essentially that "we are selfish". Upholding "civilization" as a justification does very little to answer this, since it is just another way of saying "what humans do". Again, why would killing humans to eat them be morally atrocious? The answer can't be simply that it wouldn't be conducive to civilization. First of all, civilization is a concept that is far less important than individual people. Secondly, it would only raise the question of why there should be any moral obligation to uphold civilization. You might reply that the virtues of civilization are self evident. But my answer to you is that they are not ... unless humanity is distinguished in some radical way that is not merely subjective, or imagined, or just another form of biological self preservation. quote: "Most important" by whose standards? Who is determining the importance (or unimportance) of humans in your scenario? Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: For the same reason that tigers don’t normally kill and eat other tigers - because it’s not a long term evolutionary stable strategy. Cannibalism is just a bad idea and it doesn’t take a genius (feline or hominid) to work out why. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
quote: Animal killing is for food and the killing process in general is very quick. Human, quite different. We ate ourselves. We torture ourselves. We kill millions of human fellows for nothing and we kill millions for our religious belief. And we kill for fun. we judge and we wrongfully judge and we send out human fellows to jail, to capital punishment and to lynch and of course to cross or even more brutal killing ways. We hold animal in zoos and circus for entertain. And we make animal our labor like elephant, cattle, monkeys and some water bird for fish. We raise them for food and clothes and we raise them for fun and we keep them for pet such as dog and we want them to worship us. those shows that human and animal are absolutely different. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: I didn't ask why it isn't a good business charter, eugenics program, or superior game pattern. I asked why it is it a moral atrocity, not why it isn't a "good idea". Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Why is cannibalism a moral atrocity? It isn’t. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Again, why would killing humans to eat them be morally atrocious? by Stephen Why is cannibalism a moral atrocity? It isn’t. by Grinch Grinch, if you don't think that there is one universal moral code, then will you please tell me your moral code? which in any case could justify human eating human/human killing human. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
The debate rages on finer and finer points further and further away from the question of whether or not humans are animals. The fierceness of the debate remains unchanged. Everybody has their position; so, what would each of us require to consider changing the positions that we hold? What beliefs would we have to consider changing for the positions of somebody who disagrees with us to seem reasonable to us? God or no God, human life is not essential to life on earth, and we keep pretending that it is and acting that way. By doing so, we are destroying the system that supports human life here. Whether we are more than animals or not, we depend for our daily existence on keeping the animal part of ourselves maintained in at least a minimal fashion. If we damage the earth the way we've been doing it, the animal part of ourselves is not going to survive, nor will life here as we know it. Kaput. Essorant, you're good with languages; is that related to caput mortuum? Residue? Like Czar and Kaiser both coming from Caesar? Take the animal parts of us away, and we won't be here to finish the conversation with each other; and it's not as sure as the sun rising tomorrow for everybody that the discussion will continue elsewhere, either. Just thought I'd limber up a little, raise a few questions and see what people are thinking. Love to all, BobK. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
quote: why? quote: Beliefs or not, there is a standpoint for everyone. To change it, one has to get convinced by other's saying, right? I can stop arguing but I don't change my mind before I am convinced (in my very limited knowledge) that I am not right. quote: We are made by God so we certainly could not claim how important we are but God thinks that we are important beings. quote: Another difference between human and animal. quote: Do you want to list our animal part? quote: This discussion is esp in human characters. Ever seen any animal do this? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
BobK... I see little in thread that would have much to do with environmentalism directly (even from the start). Though regardless of ontological views, I think most of us here would be for environmental responsibility. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: I mentioned not only cannibalism per se, but the intentional killing of humans for food. You wouldn't consider that a moral atrocity? Would it be morally different than killing an an animal for food, other than the detached recognition that it wouldn't be an "evolutionary stable strategy"? Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Stephen, I owe you more words, but for now these are what I have to offer. I'm not certain that a multi-tiered system is actually compatible with an ecological viewpoint. Two-tiers is hierarchical, ecological is an interactive self-governing system, like a thermostat, that functions as a series of feed-back loops. Man as in dominion who may do as he will may be accepted theology, but not I think such good ecology. I notice, however, that you use the term "environmental responsibility," which seems to fit with the stewardship model more than the ecological model. Perhaps we are talking apples and elephants here? My thesis is that we are part of the system we are discussing, and our current model is suicidal. Until we start regarding ourselves as animals among other animals and act for the preservation of the system of which we are all apart, then the whole system will fly apart. Almost everything that's special about us, that may add to our special distinction from other animals, will probably go down the tubes with that. Along with much that distinguishes the elephant, the whale and the tiger from each other and from us. We are especially attached to our own distinctions. We tend to frame this in a language of self regard, as proof of our splendor. We are preaching to the choir. We have a long line of our own dead who may be our greatest skeptics, the victims of our own wars, our own religious conflicts. Even we, the temporary survivors aren't on the same page. Are Humans human? Killing animals for food is a waste of resources. It takes three pounds of corn to raise a pound of pig, and twelve to raise a pound of beef to the point of slaughter. Why not simply skip the middle step? Or cut way way down on it? Cannibalism is an atrocity because it kills a sentient being. The fact that the being is human makes the identification simpler and the impact more powerful and the understanding of one's own nature more piercing and difficult to escape. It makes the distinction between eating the flesh of one's brother and one's self more difficult to avoid. It is also an error which frequently contains its own punishment. If we are talking about human's eating humans, this is the primary pathway for the spread of kuru, the prion disease that appears in cattle as Mad Cow Disease and in sheep as—I believe—scabies. All my best, affectionately, BobK. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos
If a knot and loop are in an elastic, there are two different things: the knot and the loop, but they are still the same thing: the elastic. The different things are not removed by being the same thing. If a little elastic can do this much, just think how much more the Universe may do and still be the same thing! My belief is that it does do it. But you suggest that if it did, if right and wrong were the same thing, they couldn't still be right and wrong. But that is not true. Different things are the same thing because the same thing is different things. Differences/Different things were never NOT the same thing. We and all other things are the same Universe everyday, but the same universe is full of differences and different things. This is not at all a paradox. It is just the way things work.
Why then do they do worse things too, Stephanos? Other animals don't use weapons of mass destruction. Nor pollute the world with hazardous waste, at least not on any such level as humans do. But if we do worse because we are worse, then you would also say a student that fails at school fails because he is an inferior human, and the student that succeeds does so because is a superior human? Those at University are superior humans, but those that can't make it to university are inferior?
You seem to belittle my point Stephanos. I said "We try to preserve humans most because we are humans and therefore we are more important to ourselves than any other animal." What is small or insufficiant about that?
Again, you seem to belittle and trivilize my points about Instinct and Civilization. What is small and insufficient about those things? Are you unable to accept my answers just because they don't include the phrases "Imago Dei" and "Superior"? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: No, I wouldn’t consider killing humans for food a universal moral atrocity. quote: No, my guess is it would be exactly the same. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Bob,
Maybe partially. Etymonline says it is probably a " misunderstanding of the phrase capot machen, a partial translation of Fr. faire capot, a phrase meaning "lose all the tricks in piquet," an obsolete card game, from Fr. capot, lit. "cover, bonnet." ". It would be logical to think capot "cover, bonnet" is related to cap and cape that come from Latin caput "head". We went from having heads to wearing heads to being worn out by them |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
quote: It is an unacceptable concept about the universe. The inner earth is hot and Sun is hot too. They are different, right? quote: The wrong deduction based on the wrong concept. We don't know what a true universe is today and how do you define here 1. same thing 2. different thing 3. the elastic thread( ...we make it longer, Ron could make it shorter. 4, the loop and knot. quote: Your belief!!! quote: If Different thing=x same thing=y then here you said X=y because y=x but x never equals y.  quote: May ask what is "we" , human only or human+animal? what is same universe? quote: So, human is different from animal. quote: assumption. quote: One more prove that human is different from animal!! quote: told ya. Human is different from animal quote: Do you want tell why? Grinch? quote: What do you think man eating plant which is life too? [This message has been edited by TomMark (02-28-2008 09:24 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: So you feel that killing humans for the purpose of food would be okay in some settings? Which setting / culture might that be? quote: So which is it, are you not morally offended at serial killers who eat their victims, or are you morally offended at hunters who eat their quarry? Which common (safe to say universal) human estimate do you consider mistaken, the general derision of murderous cannibals, or the general acceptance of hunters? Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ess: quote: If you think I am inductively making this distinction based on the virtue of observed actions, then you've misunderstood me. I said earlier that both and animals and humans do "good" and "bad" things. But the kinds of bad things humans do are of a different caliber than the bad things animals do ... The same holds true for good things. When man is corrupt, he is corrupt in a titanic way. That's why we're able to wipe out millions with the touch of a button. That's why our misguided progress sometimes harms the environment and ourselves profoundly. Compare this villiany with the scandals of the most ferocious carnivores, and you'll get a sense of what I mean. We can be evil, in a totally different way and degree than animals because we are fallen gods, as it were. I just want you to understand I am offering an ontological argument of kind, not just degree. I'm not artificially creating a different category for humans based upon how much better behaved we are than animals. The things that make us uniquely human, are much more different from the rest of the herd, than any difference is between species within the herd. It's the square and the cube again, if you follow. If that is true then good and bad behavior will both take on new dimensions. And I think we have ample evidence for this. quote: Again, you are only describing what I've asked you to explain. Why are we more imporant to ourselves, if we are no different than the larger herd in any significant way? What you are saying amounts to "we are selfish". But is there a better reason? What if I extended that selfishness even further and decided that school children might be good quarry for hunting? Same principle, no? Is there anything deeper or more striking than mere self interest, foundational to our deep rooted feelings about these things? And Essorant, no, I'm not belittling, I'm challenging and exporing what you've said. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
BobK: quote: Yes, if you think by dominion, I mean "do whatever we want and don't worry about it", then we are talking about two very different things. With proper authority (of any kind) comes care and responsibility. So, yes, the stewardship model is the best. The "ecological" model you suggest raises some questions in my mind. Firstly, you speak sentences and phrases which allude to responsibility, such as "Until we start regarding ... and act for the preservation ...". In a truly ecological model, in which we are but part of the system, wouldn't we simply be what we are with no recourse? Alligators can't cease to act like alligators. Ants can't behave differently than ants. And Leopards don't change their spots. But because we are moral / rational/ responsible beings (evidence to me of our special status), we can change our approach, or at least protest what others do and persuade for reform. If you don't want to call this a special task divinely given, you still have to recognize our species as totally unique and above the rest in one sense, that we may act in harmony or discord by a reflective act of will.If you're describing a truly ecoglogical model, why not say that everything we do (like it or not) is a part of that ecosystem? I know why ... because we can make a moral and rational distinction between what is harmful and irresponsible, and what is helpful and responsible. Stewardship must enter the picture for you as well. I don't understand urging man to realize he's just an animal, and to therfore quit his non-animal behaviors. If we really are nothing more (or different) than the animals, that would be like trying to get a fish to realize that he's wet. In a word, unnecessary. Unless of course our behavior is a clue that we are very different from the rest, even if our fallen crown mocks us ... it is meant for our heads. And rumor has it that things will be set right in this regard. quote: You'll not find me disagreeing with you here. The taller they are, the harder they fall. The greater the being in stature, the worse the possible ruin and travesty of what it was meant to be. Which would be worse a botching of Beethoven's 6th, or a child singing out of key on "Mary had a little Lamb"? One is cute, the other would have you wanting a refund at the concert hall. As I explained to Essorant, the mere scope of our misguided deeds, is a testimony to our place of honor, even if it is just in the recognition of the terrible repercussions of having abandoned our proper post. quote: Well at least you are placing some special honor upon sentience, which is qualitatively human. And you are probably rightly using the word "punishment" in regard to such choices, though it may be more metaphorical for you. interesting talk, Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Oh Bob, I almost forgot to address this. For now, I'll say that I don't think the argument is as straightforward as you make it to be. Meat is nutritionally different than corn. And a cow would also be able to provide milk and cheese all along before the slaughter. Yes its possible to eat vegan and get the protein needed for survival in legumes and other plants, but I don't know how feasible or desirable that would be for everyone ... much less necessary. But I will certainly listen more about this proposal. Though would miss my ham sandwiches dearly. Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: At the risk of repeating myself I do not believe that cannibalism is a universal moral atrocity. As to the question regarding whether cannibalism is somehow morally different in the eyes of a cannibal than killing other species I can only guess but that guess would be no there is no difference in their eyes. If you’re asking if cannibalism offends me as an individual then the answer is no, I find it abhorrent but the fact that some people don’t simply proves that we live by different standards, I dare say that if I was born into a culture where cannibalism was the accepted norm my standards would probably match theirs. I definitely don’t think either is mistaken we simply live by a different set of rules. Do I personally accept the slaughter of other species of animals for food - yes and probably with the same ease that a cannibal accepts the slaughter of humans, yet some people find both equally abhorrent. I can only conclude that there are many different standards, none of them universal and none of them fitting the description of mistaken. So when you say: Why is cannibalism a moral atrocity? The best answer I can give is - It isn’t - it doesn‘t answer your question but there‘s a reason for that. Your question is flawed, it begs the question with the presumption that cannibalism is a moral atrocity when to some people it clearly isn’t. You may as well have asked me “when was the last time you beat your wife” because your question is just as unanswerable with a direct reply if I’ve never beaten my wife (which happens to be the case). My answer can’t be “Last Tuesday” or “January 4th” the best I could offer is “I haven’t”. |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
quote: Mind you many when human ate human, the victims were the captives in the fight between tribes. Very rarely human eats the person of their own community (how gruesome to write this!!!!) So was it cultural that Jews were tortured around in WW2? Was it cultural that Hitler kill many? Was it cultural that Hitler and many his followers consider the people should be blue eyed? Was it cultural that black people were slaves? Is human being's greediness cultural? Do we all celebrate our cultures? And respect other people's cultures? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: Well, you did say that you find murder and cannablism "abhorrent", but then backtrack to say that your own abhorrence holds no real insight, other than conditioning. I would of course suggest that your gut holds, in this case, more insight than your head ... And that it is really possible for certain cultures to be more "right" than others about certain moral views or practices. This way of seeing things need not be ethnocentric, since I am quite sure that Western Culture has its own blind spots. I truly don't understand why you would admit the possibility of error in virtually all areas of life excepting the moral sphere. When something usually applies in a rather wide way (such as the simple possibility of being wrong), its exclusion or denial in a controversial area seems artificial. Of course you believe all lines of demarcation are artificial, so there you have it. quote: My question can't be flawed, it is the unavoidable inquiry springing from my cultural upbringing and surroundings. Seriously, to most it is a question of atrocity. Either this represents true moral knowledge of which a few are not privy, or have lost through neglect ... or your own abhorrent feelings about it are irrational, being born wholly from conditioning. quote: Yeah, Grinch. I guess the only difference is that in your mouth, the moral argument still rings since the thrust of your reply depends on the despicable nature of wife beating. The point is, if I am to take your view seriously, beating your wife would be little different than beating an egg. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, I'm truly not denying that humans are unique. I'm just denying that they are superior than other animals. Isn't your mother dearer to you, than my mother? And yet, is your mother truly superior than my mother? Are you truly selfish? I think you would agree that your love and family ties make your family more important to you, not an inferiority of my family or of a hamster's family, for that matter. Our nature and family ties knit humans closer to humans, not some inferiority of other animals. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, I fully admit that a belief in human "superiority" may stem from arrogance. But if God has truly bestowed on us the distinct and honorable role of bearing his image in a way that our fuzzy cousins cannot, to deny it would amount to false-humility. Thankfully remembrance of the Fall may keep us humble (even in the knowledge of our position), since it reminds us that fallen gods can do much more mischief than any beast ever could. Maybe for now, we'll have to be content with each other's concessions, though not fully agreeing. I'm glad that you can recognize the distinction, even if you don't interpret it the same. And you may also be glad that I am not opting for a do-as-you-will lordship over the earth, that doesn't recognize any kinship at all with our fuzzy and feathered neighbors. I would like to address your last point, though no time for now. Later, Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: When it comes to constructing flawed questions there is no difference. Flawed is flawed Stephen, just as pregnant is pregnant, there is no middle ground. quote: Right by whose standards Stephen, yours or those of the cannibal? You can only measure the actions of others by comparison to your own standards, at which point you are liable to fall foul of personal bias. Even if you disregard cultural bias and look at standards within our own culture there is clear evidence that no universally correct standard exists and that what you see as right is just plain wrong when viewed by someone else. Non-Christians are more right when it comes to moral standards than Christians, at least according to non-Christians, are they correct? If you are a Christian you’re more likely to disagree with this statement, if you’re a non-Christian you’re more likely to agree. If you could find an unbiased observer, and by dint of the excluded middle that’s literally impossible, my guess is you’d find that neither group can legitimately claim to be more right than the other. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: But didn't your protest of the "wife beating" question at least assume the immorality of beating one's wife? This proves the point that you too, on more than a few issues, feel that there is a real right or wrong. How can you say that cultures are equally knowledgable or right (on moral matters as well as other matters) by the virtue of merely existing? quote: I could just as easily say to you: Right by whose standards, Grinch, yours or those of the serial killer? Right by whose standards, Grinch, yours or those of the rapist? Right by whose ... yours or those of the child molester? ... yours or those of the ... (and the problem with this line becomes obvious) I'm not saying there's no such things as grey areas in the picture; But I will insist that there is a coherent picture displayed in the consideration of the moral question. There are many wrongs which, if done to you, would make you feel instantly certain of this. Not that you shouldn't forgive and play the better man, but you certainly wouldn't feel that your offense must always be the sheer result of socialization. I'm also quite sure that you would feel that there are decent acts, which if done in any cultural setting would be really worthy of admiration. If you say otherwise, I think you're somewhat in denial. If you are irritated at this saying , I only ask that you overlook my deterministic socialization that led me to say so. quote: Right by whose standards yours or those of the cannibal? As you tried to say of me before, you've given me only two choices, when there is in fact a third ... another standard of which mine and the cannibals is measured against, and of which both is only an attempt. As with everything else, some attempts are better than others. Personal bias is hardly likely when the consensus of humanity is that cannibalism is a morally diseased practice. Remember that those who think its okay to kill fellow humans for food are in the minority, just like those in our own nation who think its okay to open fire in schools, or to methodically destroy peoples lives for fun. You're in the minority here if you want to justify the kinds of things which are pretty much ubiquitously condemned. And by saying so I'm not even subscribing to the consensus view of morality. I'm just saying that the one moral law is evident enough for most to grasp. quote: What is the clear evidence for the non-existence of a universal morality? quote: I really don't see the scenario of Christians and non-Christians trying to push very different moral standards. Though I often see relativistic thinkers denying there is a real moral standard in the universe, but all the while living as if there were (even to the point of protesting the behavior of others at times). For its not that Christian and non-Christian morality differ so much. Even non-Christians whom I've known who seem to be morally questionable in areas, hold a body of belief and practice quite in common with Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and moralists of all stripes. The one or several noticeable moral differences catch all of the attention, against a backdrop of so much common ground, its embarrassing. C.S. Lewis once wrote that "The human mind has no more power of inventing a new value than of planting a new sun in the sky or a new primary colour in the spectrum". What Christians have tended to say (or should in my opinion) is that none of us have been able to keep the moral standards we hold in common. No one even lives up to his own standards, so how much less God's? And this underscores a moral / spiritual need in our lives. Again I think the juxtaposition of "Christian" morals and "non-Christian" morals reveals less contrast than imagined. Christianity always assumed the morality that was already there. And while it did sharpen that standard to a frightening clarity at times (like when Jesus said that a man commits adultery who merely lusts in his heart ... or murder if he hates in his heart), it did not bring forth an original moral system. It's originality lies elsewhere, namely in how the problems of failure and broken relationship is approached and overcome. And the same is illustrated in our little discussion here, Grinch. You said that you find murderous cannibalism abborhent (although you undermine your own insight as a purely conditioned response). I am in fact agreeing with your moral code, but strongly disagreeing with your philosophy. (And BTW, we don't have to discuss this Grinch. You've expressed in the past that you didn't want to, and I still want to respect that wish if it remains so). Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (03-02-2008 05:22 PM).] |
||
|
Falling rain
since 2008-01-31
Posts 2178Small town, Illinois |
yes we are by biological thinking. I see it as they have a mind of there own. so do we. Are we more sophisticated then them? In some ways yes and others no. We are just about as savage as them. Yes but we go at it in a different manner... So in my opinion yes we are animals. just have a larger brain for thinking more indepth thoughts. ~Zach~ |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Stephen It’s the general arguments for and against the existence of gods I’m avoiding Stephen. I don’t mind discussing a subject where the existence of gods is a prerequisite that underpins one side of the argument as long as the focus remains on the subject at hand. Saying that however may be a little hypocritical in a thread about humans\animals that’s rapidly being sidetracked down the branch line of morality. Start another thread with your last reply Stephen and I’ll happily discuss morality. |
||
|
LadyTom Member
since 2008-02-29
Posts 353LA, CA |
quote: Ah-Ha, Grinch, this is not Christian/non Christian issue. Human history is much, much longer than "Christian" History. Before 2008 years, Human indeed had humanity, morality and conscience....that was why civilization... TM |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch, I can appreciate that. I do think the moral question is related to the thread since moral awareness is one of the major phenomena which sets humans apart from animals. But there are other things to talk of as well, and as always the thread is an open book waiting to be written. I don't really want to start a thread on ethics or morality. I'm content to keep it in the context of this present thread, though I certainly don't mind if you think the direction is amiss, and choose not to respond. Tom Mark ... What's with the "LadyTom"? You're really confusing me now. Stephen |
||
|
LadyTom Member
since 2008-02-29
Posts 353LA, CA |
Tom Mark ... What's with the "LadyTom"? You're really confusing me now. Stephen, To be honest , TomMark is Ron's Big brother. LadyTom is the family Aunt ... Different roles. Now, serious, I am back to the original old woman otherwise I would soon get myself into trouble. |
||
|
LadyTom Member
since 2008-02-29
Posts 353LA, CA |
quote: I shall not pretend that I don't know what you were trying to say. Sir Essorant. Different things are the same things....such as Human is a thing Animal is a thing Light is a thing Ocean is a thing "think before leap" is a thing too in life. So they are all the same "thing"s. Same thing is different things... such as light Light is a thing But red, yellow blue are all different lights Different things were never the same thing....such as Red light has never been blue light. The meaning of word thing here has different content. So back to if human beings are animals. Human is a thing Animal is a thing They are the same "thing" But human is called human Monkey is monkey they are not the same thing And because in any grouping point, Human and monkey are just like that red light has never been blue light? right? If human is not monkey If human is not whale If human is not birds If human is not reptile If human is not .... so human is not animal. Is this what you wanted to say, sir Essorant? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. My vote is for cats to take over the world . . . because they couldn’t care less . |
||
|
LadyTom Member
since 2008-02-29
Posts 353LA, CA |
If cat can write poems. I absolutely hate cats....an animal without loyalty. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
An animal without loyalty? How about an animal without equals? Stephen |
||
|
LadyTom Member
since 2008-02-29
Posts 353LA, CA |
I absolutely hate cats....an animal without loyalty....TM First, this my true feelings about cat. Second, when we say that Human is different from animal, we don't say who is better or worse. Has cat ever bothered me? There was once a white cat tried to kick me on the leg. I may dislike cat for any reasons but I doubt that any cats that "hate" me. The authority, controlling power on other species is very unique in human. To me it is cat. To others it might be spiders, earthworms, fur things. See, Stephen, this is called not equal.... We can dislike animals. Animals may not have the unjust feelings toward us except some see us as their food. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
What happens if "judgement" is taken out of the equation? Is the prediliction to make judgements, or the impossibility not to make judgements, an integral part of the human/animal? Does it make sense to suggest that we are animals pre-occupied with making judgements? If we do judge, are we just animals doing our particular animal thing? If we don't judge, aren't we still animals? Jimbeaux |
||
|
TomMark Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133LA,CA |
Dear Jim, "judgment" can not be taken away because it is an unique human character. All bias, all wars, are all based on it. I think that it would be un-realistic to drop it. My thought. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Judgement is not unique to humans. All animals with brains have judgement. The only living things that don't make judgements are plants and the like, only because they don't have brains. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
ESS: Are there differences between instinct, choice and judgement? Some birds eat seeds. Some birds eat bugs. Is that a choice? Seed-eaters don't seem to make the judgement that bug-eaters are bad. Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
LadyTom Member
since 2008-02-29
Posts 353LA, CA |
exactly! dear Jim. Have a very wonderful weekend!!! |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
For sure. The bird needs to judge that has an appetite for a seed to begin with, judge that what is there is a seed, judge if it is safe to eat, judge the distance between itself and the seed, judge the safety, etc and then judge and choose finally to go get the seed. Although this may happen very naturally and quickly, certainly it includes all three of the things you mentioned, instinct, choice, and judgement. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
The only thing it doesn't do is judge. It needs, sees, calculates, etc. It doesn't seem to ask itself whether it is morally right to eat a seed or not, which would be judgement. Jimbeaux |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
But there are more judgements than just "moral", Jim. We judge ability, distance, safety, etc. But I don't think there is an absence of moral judgement in other animals, it is just more like a stub, that is more like a branch in the human. Other animals know and judge good and evil, in that they know and judge something that helps them survive distinct from what endangers, threatens, harms. That choosing a seed may not include much moral judgement on a bird's part, certainly doesn't mean that a bird doesn't make moral judgements. As long as any animal recognizes what helps him survive, or recognizes danger, avoiding it or trying to make it go away, I think he is truly making a moral judgement. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
ESS: RE: "But there are more judgements than just "moral", Jim. We judge ability, distance, safety, etc. Judging ability involves referencing the moral consideration of "fairness." Accurately measuring distance doesn't involve judgement. Estimating distance involves guessing, informed or not, not judgement about whether it is a good distance, bad distance, or indifferent distance. The notion of safety is related to moral distinction. Something, someone, or an action is regarded as safe or unsafe based on moral preconditioning. I already lost one lengthy, reasoned reply to your position by being dumb enough to write "in the box." To cut this one short and preserve it, I suggest that God had a great take on the subject: "Judge not, that ye be not judged." A primary moral and exclusively human consideration. I don't know if this notion plays much of a role in the minds of other animals. Do other animals with brains experience a level of consciousness of their environment? I think so. Are they self-aware? I don't know for sure, but I suspect that a deer surely hurts on an individual level when somebody shoots it. RE: "Other animals know and judge good and evil, in that they know and judge something that helps them survive distinct from what endangers, threatens, harms." Well, I think that's a difficult stretch. An other than human animal's ability to distinguish good-for-me from bad-for-me doesn't mean it views a situation, opportunity, or event as either good or evil in a human sense. "Evil" is the particularly charged word, though I can't buy "good" either. Last, when the post humanizes animals into a "he" or "him," I think it raises more questions that it answers. Best, Jimbeaux. |
||
|
matronmedusa Member
since 2008-03-08
Posts 89Alabama, USA |
Some say the difference between man and animal is that animals do not have a soul; man does. I cannot see ANY living creature as NOT having a soul; surely even rocks must hold the spiritual energy of God in order to "be." Others say that the difference is that humans have a sense of humor and animals don't. Having owned and observed many animals throughout my life, I must say they certainly have a sense of humor. Still, others say that the difference is that humans were given free choice. Personally, I don't see how animals don't have free choice... My dog is very picky over which table scraps he prefers. He knows exactly what he likes; and he will choose that over something he doesn't. Some people even say it is the level of intelligence; but I know many people that continue to make the same mistakes over and over, despite the turmoil they put themselves through... My dog only needed to get into the trash once before he learned it was a really bad idea. I feel that the difference is the ability (or perhaps the drive) to question our existance. |
||
|
matronmedusa Member
since 2008-03-08
Posts 89Alabama, USA |
"Last, when the post humanizes animals into a "he" or "him," I think it raises more questions that it answers." Perhaps it's a subtle way of inadvertantly reminding us that maybe we are not that different after all. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
