**The consciousness of humans and our philosophical studies separates us from animals.** * Though humans *are* animals, we have evolved into beings that study their own consciousness. There are countless philosophies on how to live our lives, the point of life, who created life, etc. that animals do not concern themselves with. Since the time of Socrates and Aristotle, humans have been examining life further than the average animal. * Animals and humans are certainly both driven by survival, but humans go a bit beyond survival in the sense that we work to not only survive, but thrive and create a purpose for ourselves. * [Descartes](https://philosophybreak.com/articles/i-think-therefore-i-am-descartes-cogito-ergo-sum-explained/) is a good philosopher to think of in moments like these. He was often concerned with our ability to sense the world around us and how accurate our own senses are. This very question seems to separate humans from animals, as animals simply *are*, and are not concerned with if they are existing authentically. To me, it seems that animals are not so much thinking “I think, therefore I am”, but rather, "I exist, therefore I am.”

**TL;DR: Rephrase, please? I don't know what side to be on.** I hate the way this is phrased. There is plenty that *separates* us from animals. We all have different body parts, configurations of those body parts, and biologies. But we *are* animals. We are *equals*. And it's a damn shame that we're so full of ourselves that we can't see that, and continue to exploit and subjugate other species to meet our own fancy and boost our own specist egos. Therefore, I can't vote on this one because it's completely and totally inaccurate. I can't be *for* it because it is undeniably false, but I can't be *against* it because it does imply equality between all species, which I'm for. And I'm not *neutral*, because I care about the topic. Overall, it's just frustrating phrasing.

Well, humans ARE animals. So this is like saying "nothing separates women from humans". Obviously no, because they are a subtype of humans. But I guess what is meant here is humans vs non-human animals. It depends if you mean normative "human" or descriptive biological "human." In the latter, biological human, we are just one animal among many. We are fundamentally minds who experience: learn, desire, wonder, fear, love, get bored, have sensations we try to interpret, and our experiences matter to us. We are thus animated by motivations (emotion) to seek what we value, and avoid harm. This is what makes us a "someone", a sentient subject of a life, and it is also the only thing we can rationally value in itself. Humans in the normative sense distinguishes itself. We can reason about our own values and behaviour. We can recognize what is rational, so that we can satisfy our interests, and we have moral agency. Meaning we can rationally engage with what is valuable outcomes for subjects. In other words, in the ways humans distinguish themselves - moral agency - we get moral responsibility to be humane. Ultimately meaning a sentient(vegan) ethics is the greates expression of what makes a human distinct from any other animal. If you reject a sentient-based ethics, and reject animals claim to your rational moral consideration, you have essentially rejected what makes you a human as opposed to non-human animal. Ultimately rejecting yourself.