Man is an animal too, my boy!

Wesstarrunner · **Posted:** Mon Sep 03, 2007 4:07 am

Einoo T. Spork wrote:

Inverse Tiger wrote:

*braces for impact*

*rubs hands together gleefully*

*looks quietly out the window as nothing seems to be happening*

lahimatoa · **Posted:** Mon Sep 03, 2007 4:15 am

From a strictly scientific standpoint, humans are animals.

But since this is the Religion and Politics forum, I believe we are created in the image of God, and are His sons and daughters. That makes us more special than baboons or crickets or dolphins.

Ju Ju Master · **Joined:** Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:01 am **Posts:** 6245

lahimatoa wrote:

But since this is the Religion and Politics forum, I believe we are created in the image of God, and are His sons and daughters. That makes us more special than baboons or crickets or dolphins.

But the only evidence you have for that is from the actions, writings and teachings of other humans.

lahimatoa · **Posted:** Mon Sep 03, 2007 4:58 am

Ju Ju Master wrote:

But the only evidence you have for that is from the actions, writings and teachings of other humans.

I'm not here to prove the existence of God.

Inverse Tiger · **Posted:** Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:17 am

Lahi worded it right. Key: "I believe". Only something supernatural, outside ourselves, can give us any kind of indication that we actually are superior, and belief is the word of the supernatural. Of course you can always come along and cast that belief as people making things up again, but religion is a bit like touching "base" in a kids game, if that makes any sense. Since nothing can be materially proven about it, you just have to take everyone's' belief for what it is and leave it at that.

Trying to argue outside of the supernatural is silly. I see people saying basically "humans are superior because humans do what humans do". Of course humans would think it's great that they do the stuff they do. It's circular. Humans are superior because they can do this stuff. Why is that stuff an indicator of superiority? Because only humans can do it.

Why is it so special that we can think meta-thoughts and make computers? We need that stuff because our bodies aren't that great compared to other animals. Other animals survive in other ways. What's Shakespeare and the Wii to them? The comparison is pointless.

(am I incoherent? I feel incoherent. Way past bedtime)

Didymus · **Posted:** Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:35 am

I disagree, Tiger. The very fact that dogs and parrots cannot appreciate the works of Bach and Shakespeare the way humans can indicates we have something that they do not. Sure the lower animals don't care; that is because they cannot understand or appreciate the differences.

Inverse Tiger · **Posted:** Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:38 am

OK, but isn't it possible that you think those things are great just because you're a human? Why should those things be considered criteria for judging non-human species? What do they have to do with anything outside of us?

Didymus · **Posted:** Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:40 am

Because the question is, should we consider humans special? Well, what criteria do you propose we use to answer that question, except criteria that reflect things that are important to us? I know that a shark wouldn't care whether the person he just ate is smarter than him, or more educated. But what dignity does that give to the shark? And better still, if a human and a shark were to face off, and you had the option of killing the shark before it could attack the human, would you do it? Is so, then why?

Inverse Tiger · **Posted:** Mon Sep 03, 2007 5:46 am

EDIT: posted before I saw your edits

When I say the following, I'm not meaning to bring animals into our human social structures, merely drawing a parallel about the reasoning here:

Say a society thinks it's great because it can do X Y and Z. It can't do A and B well or at all, but those things aren't relevant to its needs. It comes across another society that does A and B most awesome, because its environment and needs and social structure etc etc are very different. But they don't do X Y and Z too well. So, because X Y and Z are important to the first society, are they then superior to the second one?

See why this reasoning doesn't seem quite right to me?

EDIT: Sharks: Of course I'd kill the shark. I'm not trying to argue that the shark has the right to a fair trial or some other human-society rights nonsense. I'm just trying to argue that superiority isn't the right idea.

Didymus · **Posted:** Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:05 am

It's basically cultural relativism extended into the realm of animals. I'm not terribly comfortable with the idea that people from different cultures cannot or should not engage one another and even challenge aspects of their culture that may not be right. For example, Nazis believe that killing Jews (and just about anyone else not exactly like them) is a good thing. Does that mean we should simply dismiss challenging their faulty beliefs? So if we're going to start tossing out ideas based on relativism, I'd rather we actually start asking some questions about what we're trying to accomplish, and try to establish some core values. But then the question arises: can we even establish core values with other species? Can we even get them to contribute to such a discussion? No, I'm still convinced that there is a distinction between us and the lower animals, and it is a distinction that does in fact allow me to refer to them as lower.

Inverse Tiger · **Posted:** Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:40 am

Before we were talking about differences in abilities, and that's what my example was about. Those hypothetical societies didn't have moral differences, they had different skill sets. Just because our skills are well suited for us doesn't mean their skills aren't well suited for them. There's no way to say whose skills are more superior because the skills fit different situations.

Now morality's another question and I can think of a way or two you could argue superiority there, but only if you make a couple of grand assumptions. But after a zillion tries now I can't explain my position on that very well so I'll have to try again later when it's not almost 4 AM

In any case I'd say that these questions:

Dids wrote:

But then the question arises: can we even establish core values with other species? Can we even get them to contribute to such a discussion?

...are why I think humans and other animals shouldn't be compared like this at all.

Mike D · **Posted:** Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:16 am

Didymus wrote:

I do not concur that survival is the greatest, most important factor in determining a species' value.

You might as well say you disagree with gravity. Species survival is our keystone...remove it and everything else collapses into a meaningless heap. If humanity goes extinct Shakespeare will have no value. He's only significant to us, so without us he might as well have never existed. The same holds true with everything we've ever accomplished. What is any of it worth without us there to ascribe value to it?

That's the essential problem with this discussion: all of our considerations of merit are subjective. Survival is the most concrete value we have.

Mike

LordQuackingstick · **Posted:** Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:08 pm

I believe that nonhuman animals have souls. Saint Francis of Assisi agrees.

PianoManGidley · **Posted:** Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:40 pm

Didymus wrote:

Because the question is, should we consider humans special? Well, what criteria do you propose we use to answer that question, except criteria that reflect things that are important to us?

Why not include criteria that isn't exclusive to us as well? That would bring in a much more global picture. Trying to base an argument around criteria that's only important and specific to humans is like trying to base a scientific theory around only evidence that supports it while excluding all evidence--no matter how overwhelming--that may contradict it.

In essence, I think the reason you see other animals as being "lower" is simply because you WANT to see them that way.

LordQuackingstick · **Posted:** Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:54 pm

Didy: If you base your argument around humans being special because of particular traits or abilities, one can argue that a dog is special because it barks, or a bat is special because it can fly. I believe all animals are special, but humans are not especially special.

furrykef · **Posted:** Mon Sep 03, 2007 1:17 pm

I guess the point is: sure, we can do things that animals can't do, but what makes that a higher level rather than a different one?

Ju Ju Master · **Joined:** Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:01 am **Posts:** 6245

Devil's advocate again, since I don't have or really even care to have a side here

Inverse Tiger wrote:

Just because our skills are well suited for us doesn't mean their skills aren't well suited for them.

But how are developing and understanding the arts more important to us than to other animals?

Didymus · **Posted:** Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:49 pm

Mike D wrote:

That's the essential problem with this discussion: all of our considerations of merit are subjective. Survival is the most concrete value we have.

Point taken. However, I would suggest that survival is not the ONLY value that we can bring to the discussion.

PianoMan wrote:

In essence, I think the reason you see other animals as being "lower" is simply because you WANT to see them that way.

I'm not basing it on what I WANT to see at all. I'm basing it on what I DO see. All I have to do is open my eyes and look around; life is surrounded by those things that do show that we humans are special. And what I DO see is that we have qualities that other animals do not, qualities that represent a greater ability to think, reason, and act.

Quote:

Didy: If you base your argument around humans being special because of particular traits or abilities, one can argue that a dog is special because it barks, or a bat is special because it can fly. I believe all animals are special, but humans are not especially special.

You have a point there, Quack: my assessment is that there are things that humans can do that other animals cannot. But it is precisely those things that do make us more special than them. Shakespeare is not on the same level as a dog's barking or a bat's flying at all, but something completely unique to human beings. Pianoman mentioned something about ignoring evidence that undermines your position; well, I feel that you're expecting me to ignore evidence that undermines yours. So, yes, it is those things that make humans unique that I point to and call us special. It just seems to me that it proves my case against yours.

LordQuackingstick · **Posted:** Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:52 pm

But there are things animals can do that we can't. Why does what we can do makes us special, while what they can do does not?

Didymus · **Posted:** Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:06 pm

The sheer scale of the kinds of things that humans can do, most of which drastically outweigh those things that animals can. A bat can fly: so what? So can man. Only we can do it at supersonic speeds, and carrying payloads. The ability to think and shape our environment makes us not only better suited to survival - yes, a nuclear war might change that, but until it does, you've got to admit, our medical advancements and ability to change our environment do give us a distinct advantage.

Not only that, but there are works which humanity has accomplished that are entirely unique and meaningful. These works appeal not just to the material realm in which we live, but demonstrate humanity's ability to reach beyond what is right in front of us, to the abstract and the transcendent. While I would never go as far as saying that animals do not have soul (on the contrary, the biblical terms for "soul" are often applied to animals as well as humans), it does show a certain amount of spiritual capacity in humans that other animals are yet to demonstrate. In short, if there is a Creator, then humanity is his pride and joy.

Now, if we're going to say we must exclude all things that are distinctly human from the discussion, the it ends up making the whole question of this topic moot to start with. We might as well be discussing apples vs. oranges. Some of you have noted that before. But if that's the case, then we should simply scrap the question rather than answering it in the affirmative. The moment you toss out all things that are specially human, you might as well say, "We cannot answer this question because it makes no sense to start with." But that's not what you're doing: you're tossing out the criteria, and expecting me to ignore evidence and agree with you.

So there you have it: in order to continue this discussion, either you must allow for the evidence of the humanities, or you toss out the very question itself as meaningless.

Inverse Tiger · **Posted:** Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:08 pm

(Started writing before the last couple of posts and don't have time to take them into account. Ju Ju: not sure I understood your question and now the conversations moving on, so I deleted that paragraph)

furrykef wrote:

I guess the point is: sure, we can do things that animals can't do, but what makes that a higher level rather than a different one?

Exactly. Especially when there's plenty we can't do that other species can. So we have meta-thought. If we didn't, we'd be dead, since nothing about our bodies really stands out compared to other animals. Our brains are our "thing". Other animals have their thing. What criteria is there, outside of our own idea of what's good and bad that's based on our own self-interest, to say that meta-thought is "better" than copious reproduction or evasion or flight? There isn't any, because interspecies communication is impossible and there's no way to establish interspecies values. So that both makes questions of equality and superiority baseless. There's our species, there's that species, there's that other species, etc. And there's nothing more to it than that.

LQ wrote:

I believe that nonhuman animals have souls. Saint Francis of Assisi agrees.

I went to a Franciscan school, I grew up reading biographies of St. Francis: I knew St. Francis as a patron saint and a personal hero. No he doesn't agree. His deal was that he didn't devalue the physical, natural world like many others tend to do. He felt creation could, should, and does point to God in ways both subtle and immediate. His personification of elements of creation and animals has nothing to do with their having a soul, and more to do with their being a part of the grand scheme of creation, whose purpose is to point out God. That doesn't mean you can't believe animals have souls, just don't go ascribing unorthodoxy that wasn't there to my main man like that. (lol I don't know why I still care...)

Didymus · **Posted:** Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:27 pm

Quote:

His deal was that he didn't devalue the physical, natural world like many others tend to do. He felt creation could, should, and does point to God in ways both subtle and immediate. His personification of elements of creation and animals has nothing to do with their having a soul, and more to do with their being a part of the grand scheme of creation, whose purpose is to point out God.

Which is precisely why I feel it is wrong to abuse animals or to treat them with excessive cruelty. This is not to say we shouldn't eat them, only that we should refrain from showing cruelty at all, whether to fellow human beings or to animals.

And my understanding is that people who are typically cruel to animals are usually just cruel people to start with; they don't treat animals worse because of some belief, but rather because they can get away with it. Given different circumstances, someone who is cruel to animals will very likely treat their fellow humans the same way.

As for keeping pets, I don't see that as cruel at all. We're essentially treating certain animals as part of our family. What can possibly be wrong with that?

LordQuackingstick · **Posted:** Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:55 pm

Inverse Tiger wrote:

LQ wrote:

I believe that nonhuman animals have souls. Saint Francis of Assisi agrees.

I went to a Franciscan school, I grew up reading biographies of St. Francis: I knew St. Francis as a patron saint and a personal hero. No he doesn't agree. His deal was that he didn't devalue the physical, natural world like many others tend to do. He felt creation could, should, and does point to God in ways both subtle and immediate. His personification of elements of creation and animals has nothing to do with their having a soul, and more to do with their being a part of the grand scheme of creation, whose purpose is to point out God. That doesn't mean you can't believe animals have souls, just don't go ascribing unorthodoxy that wasn't there to my main man like that. (lol I don't know why I still care...)

OK, then, Pope John Paul II agrees.

Mike D · **Posted:** Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:08 pm

Inverse Tiger wrote:

lol I don't know why I still care...)

Probably because it's the only game in town at the moment. We haven't had a real scrap in R&P in ages. I certainly didn't expect this topic to catch fire like it did, but it's clearly touched a nerve.

Mike

LordQuackingstick · **Posted:** Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:02 pm

Didymus wrote:

The sheer scale of the kinds of things that humans can do, most of which drastically outweigh those things that animals can. A bat can fly: so what? So can man. Only we can do it at supersonic speeds, and carrying payloads. The ability to think and shape our environment makes us not only better suited to survival - yes, a nuclear war might change that, but until it does, you've got to admit, our medical advancements and ability to change our environment do give us a distinct advantage.

Those things only have meaning because we give them meaning. If we gave meaning to the fact that we have fingernails, some would argue we are special because of that. A dog may give a lot of meaning to his bark.

Didymus · **Posted:** Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:05 pm

Quack, did you even read the rest of my post? I'm thinking you completely missed that part where I said, if you're just going to toss out anything distinctly human, then you need to toss out the whole question. We give them meaning because we CAN. That in and of itself proves that we have certain capacities that animals do not. I would appreciate it if you stop with this whole "Let's just toss out evidence and common sense" line of reasoning you keep defaulting to. But, as I said before, if we are not allowed to place value on criteria, then we cannot make ANY assessment in answer to your question: you can no more say that animals are equal to humans than I can say that we are superior.

Oh, and just to remind you, we're not talking about criteria like whether we have hair or noses, but on what we can accomplish. We're not talking about whether we have fingernails or not, but on the fact that we can use our fingers to type essays or novels. We're not talking about whether or not dogs bark, but whether your dog can discuss a moral or philosophical subject. Accomplishments - not nature.

In short, you have yet to demonstrate why we should not place value on these things.

LordQuackingstick · **Posted:** Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:12 am

I'm not saying it's wrong to attach meaning to things. We just shouldn't think that humans are the only ones capable of attaching meaning to things.

Inverse Tiger · **Posted:** Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:21 am

LordQuackingstick wrote:

OK, then, Pope John Paul II agrees.[citation needed]

link plz

Didymus · **Posted:** Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:42 am

LordQuackingstick wrote:

I'm not saying it's wrong to attach meaning to things. We just shouldn't think that humans are the only ones capable of attaching meaning to things.

But my point is, Quackingstick, for the sake of this discussion, we do have to take into consideration what criteria we're going to appeal to in making our assessments about human/animal equality/superiority. We can't just toss out everything and use no criteria. Otherwise, we wouldn't even be able to make the comparison at all. What I'm saying is that, until I have solid reason for believing we should toss out those things which are unique to our species as criteria, then I really don't see how we can even have this discussion.

So perhaps that's where we stand. We need some commonly agreed upon criteria for making our assessment. And I am in favor not only of using such things as our ability to shape our environment, but also those works of human creativity that define our culture. I see no reason to exclude either of these as criteria.

LordQuackingstick · **Posted:** Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:43 am

Citation granted.

Didy: Fine, but we cannot use criteria that is exclusive to us, or which always includes us. Otherwise we'd just be telling ourselves what we want to hear.

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Man is an animal too, my boy!

Who is online