Lab
See how this opinion breaks down by gender, political spectrum and generation — and who shares your view.
Gender
7 comments
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 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.”
There's literally no way we can know if animals examine themselves or not. We don't know their languages, so we can't ask them how they think about things. The best we have is observation, which only gives us half the picture. Until we can crack that language barrier, we can never know for certain that animals don't think, philosophize, feel, and examine as we do.
And it's honestly hubris to believe otherwise without any legitimate proof that they are just dumb, unconscious meat sacks.
How does being able to philosophise make us seperate from animals? We are just animals that can philosophise.
Other animals have evolved to specialise in their own things - yet we still call them animals despite having these unique trais.
Yes we thrive, yes we create purposes, we are very complex creatures, but still animal creatures nonetheless.
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.
I don't see the contradiction here.
The fact that "we all have different body parts, configurations of those body parts, and biologies" doesn't separate us from animals, since animals do too, no?
TL;DR -- The phrasing implies that we're exactly the same, when we're not. We have to recognize the differences along with the similarities in order to truly appreciate what makes each species special, and thus, equal.
My point is that each species has parts/features that separate them from others.
For example, wings are what separates birds from land and sea creatures.
Gills and fins separate sea creatures from land and air creatures.
Venom separates snakes from humans.
Opposable thumbs separate primates from other orders.
We're all the same in that we're different, yes. And yes, differences can even be found within species. For example, I don't have the endurance or speed to run a marathon, but a marathon runner does. I am separated by my lack of athletic skill, and probably my physical makeup, too. So I can't go on a friendly run with a marathon runner and bond over our ability to run.
I likewise can't go fly with a pigeon just to hang out and appreciate the view together. I am separated by my lack of wings.
The problem with the phrasing here is not that it implies we're all the same. The problem is that it doesn't take into account all the differences, either. We have to recognize and respect both the similarities and the differences to see how truly special we all are in our own ways, and that's what makes us the same -- and thus, equals.
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.
Make the case or invite a friend to comment!