Humans Vs. Animal

[The Noble Protoman.exe]

Unless of course, someone can prove me wrong, which I'd love to see someone play the advocate of the devil.  

[Kittey-chan]

As for whether animals can talk with the fluency that humans can, and think on their own, there have been numerous studies prooving this. Several species of animals have even learned English (now how many humans can you say learned animal??) such as African Greys who can understand and speak english(look up the african grey Alex) and primates like Lucy, who learned sign language. I don't think that talking or communicating has anything to do with what makes us human.
I think what makes us difference is that we can have a relationship with God. How many animals can pray?  

[zz1000zz]

This is a topic which should receive far more attention than it does for religious folk. Scientifically speaking, the only true difference between humans and animals would seem to be that humans are self-aware. However, it has already been proven that at least two (or was it three?) other species are also self-aware. This makes the question of, "what makes humans superior?" all the more important. While there is little doubt humans have a more developed brain than animals, there is actually nothing which shows we are superior to *all* animals.

This means the only thing which actually seperates us from animals is that we have souls. Of course, this poses the question of, "Why do humans have souls when other self-aware creatures do not?" This again can only be answered from a religious stance.

So i guess your answer is humans are different from animals only in so far as people choose to believe they are.  

[The Noble Protoman.exe]

zz1000zz

This is a topic which should receive far more attention than it does for religious folk. Scientifically speaking, the only true difference between humans and animals would seem to be that humans are self-aware. However, it has already been proven that at least two (or was it three?) other species are also self-aware. This makes the question of, "what makes humans superior?" all the more important. While there is little doubt humans have a more developed brain than animals, there is actually nothing which shows we are superior to *all* animals.

This means the only thing which actually seperates us from animals is that we have souls. Of course, this poses the question of, "Why do humans have souls when other self-aware creatures do not?" This again can only be answered from a religious stance.

So i guess your answer is humans are different from animals only in so far as people choose to believe they are.

I know, it's hard isn't it...? But there's got to be some other difference that it's just hard to conclude.  

[zz1000zz]

Master Protoman_exe

zz1000zz

This is a topic which should receive far more attention than it does for religious folk. Scientifically speaking, the only true difference between humans and animals would seem to be that humans are self-aware. However, it has already been proven that at least two (or was it three?) other species are also self-aware. This makes the question of, "what makes humans superior?" all the more important. While there is little doubt humans have a more developed brain than animals, there is actually nothing which shows we are superior to *all* animals.

This means the only thing which actually seperates us from animals is that we have souls. Of course, this poses the question of, "Why do humans have souls when other self-aware creatures do not?" This again can only be answered from a religious stance.

So i guess your answer is humans are different from animals only in so far as people choose to believe they are.

I know, it's hard isn't it...? But there's got to be some other difference that it's just hard to conclude.

Why should there be any other difference?  

[The Noble Protoman.exe]

zz1000zz

Master Protoman_exe

zz1000zz

This is a topic which should receive far more attention than it does for religious folk. Scientifically speaking, the only true difference between humans and animals would seem to be that humans are self-aware. However, it has already been proven that at least two (or was it three?) other species are also self-aware. This makes the question of, "what makes humans superior?" all the more important. While there is little doubt humans have a more developed brain than animals, there is actually nothing which shows we are superior to *all* animals.

This means the only thing which actually seperates us from animals is that we have souls. Of course, this poses the question of, "Why do humans have souls when other self-aware creatures do not?" This again can only be answered from a religious stance.

So i guess your answer is humans are different from animals only in so far as people choose to believe they are.

I know, it's hard isn't it...? But there's got to be some other difference that it's just hard to conclude.

Why should there be any other difference?

Because god made us with his own hands. Unlike the animals whom he spake into existance.  

[Kittey-chan]

Sure, God made us. But didn't he make us from the same substance that he made everything else? So it seems to me that the difference wouldn't be anything *physical* that you could measure.
There are obvious differences in our behavior. No animal has sent things to space, for example. No animal has made a written mode of communication. Animals don't make churches, and they don't pray. The difference has to do with our behavior, how we choose to *use* these mortal bodies.
And that seems to difference to me. Humans *have* the capability to choose how we act. We can understand right or wrong. Animals don't have a concept of right and wrong- only 'allowed' or 'not allowed', 'pleasant consequence' or 'unpleasant consequence'.  

[zz1000zz]

Master Protoman_exe

Because god made us with his own hands. Unlike the animals whom he spake into existance.

God gave humans souls, he did not give animals souls. That would be the only difference.

that_fairy

Sure, God made us. But didn't he make us from the same substance that he made everything else? So it seems to me that the difference wouldn't be anything *physical* that you could measure.
There are obvious differences in our behavior. No animal has sent things to space, for example. No animal has made a written mode of communication. Animals don't make churches, and they don't pray. The difference has to do with our behavior, how we choose to *use* these mortal bodies.

No animal has sponsored genocide, created false religions or designed a weapon capable of destroying miles upon miles of area. A cynical person might actually claim animals are superior to humans in that they do not feel it necessary to rise above what they already are. To be content could be viewed as a sign of superiority. While that is not my stance, it is one worth noting.

Quote:

And that seems to difference to me. Humans *have* the capability to choose how we act. We can understand right or wrong. Animals don't have a concept of right and wrong- only 'allowed' or 'not allowed', 'pleasant consequence' or 'unpleasant consequence'.

Does your understanding of morality truly differ so much from an animal's understanding of 'allowed' and 'not allowed'? Do the codes followed by groups of animals mean less because they stem from a "primal" source? I say no. If an animal is truly self-aware (and all science would indicate at least some are), and it knows/follows set rules, that animal gives every indication of having morals. Animals may know their morals as guides to survival, but there is no way to prove they are less valid than those followed by humans (well, not that humans actually follow them).

Even negative traits (greed, anger, unbound lust) are demostrated in animals much the same as in humans. Many dogs seem quite capable of sadness, a trait hardly fitting for a creature with no morals...

Ahem. I will stop myself before i begin to rant. To state my point simply, there is no basis to morally elevate humans above animals, save that granted through blind faith. That faith can come from any source, whether it be a religion or simply a personal belief. It cannot be proven, it cannot be demonstrated. It is no different than any other form of faith.  

[Kittey-chan]

zz1000zz

Master Protoman_exe

Because god made us with his own hands. Unlike the animals whom he spake into existance.

God gave humans souls, he did not give animals souls. That would be the only difference.

that_fairy

Sure, God made us. But didn't he make us from the same substance that he made everything else? So it seems to me that the difference wouldn't be anything *physical* that you could measure.
There are obvious differences in our behavior. No animal has sent things to space, for example. No animal has made a written mode of communication. Animals don't make churches, and they don't pray. The difference has to do with our behavior, how we choose to *use* these mortal bodies.

No animal has sponsored genocide, created false religions or designed a weapon capable of destroying miles upon miles of area. A cynical person might actually claim animals are superior to humans in that they do not feel it necessary to rise above what they already are. To be content could be viewed as a sign of superiority. While that is not my stance, it is one worth noting.

Quote:

And that seems to difference to me. Humans *have* the capability to choose how we act. We can understand right or wrong. Animals don't have a concept of right and wrong- only 'allowed' or 'not allowed', 'pleasant consequence' or 'unpleasant consequence'.

Does your understanding of morality truly differ so much from an animal's understanding of 'allowed' and 'not allowed'? Do the codes followed by groups of animals mean less because they stem from a "primal" source? I say no. If an animal is truly self-aware (and all science would indicate at least some are), and it knows/follows set rules, that animal gives every indication of having morals. Animals may know their morals as guides to survival, but there is no way to prove they are less valid than those followed by humans (well, not that humans actually follow them).

Even negative traits (greed, anger, unbound lust) are demostrated in animals much the same as in humans. Many dogs seem quite capable of sadness, a trait hardly fitting for a creature with no morals...

Ahem. I will stop myself before i begin to rant. To state my point simply, there is no basis to morally elevate humans above animals, save that granted through blind faith. That faith can come from any source, whether it be a religion or simply a personal belief. It cannot be proven, it cannot be demonstrated. It is no different than any other form of faith.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that humans are better than animals- only different. My point was to describe ways in which we are different.
About the genocide, animals will actually do similar things. They will kill off entire tribes of other animals. However, it isn't wrong when animals do it because they A. dont have a concept that killing something you dislike is morally wrong and B. they generally kill to gain something like habitat or food or mates rather than pure hatred. I'm not saying here that animals are bad- only informing you of something you seem to not have known.
I will continue to disagree about animals having morals. Animals can feel a wide array of emotions. Happyness, sadness, anger, love. Animals can be altruistic or cruel. However, they do not have a sense of 'it is wrong because it is wrong' or 'it is wrong because God said so.' They have a sense of 'it is wrong because it makes me feel sad [for whatever reason]. A dog does not know that stealing food is wrong; however, it does understand that if it does so and gets cought, it will get in trouble. A dog will comfort a sick child but will not care for the fright of a small cat it has cornered.  

[Berezi]

zz1000zz

Ahem. I will stop myself before i begin to rant. To state my point simply, there is no basis to morally elevate humans above animals, save that granted through blind faith. That faith can come from any source, whether it be a religion or simply a personal belief. It cannot be proven, it cannot be demonstrated. It is no different than any other form of faith.

IWe have control over a very large set of resources, unlike most other of the inhabitants of this earth. By virtue of that, we are elevated above the other parts of creation. It's my opinion that because of that, we ought to take care of the earth so that we don't screw it up for ourselves and for the other inhabitants of it.

that_fairy

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that humans are better than animals- only different. My point was to describe ways in which we are different.
About the genocide, animals will actually do similar things. They will kill off entire tribes of other animals. However, it isn't wrong when animals do it because they A. dont have a concept that killing something you dislike is morally wrong and B. they generally kill to gain something like habitat or food or mates rather than pure hatred. I'm not saying here that animals are bad- only informing you of something you seem to not have known.

Does a little concept like Lebensraum mean anything to you?

Sorry for the glibness, but Hitler's practical motivation for the genocide in Europe was to create more space for the Germans, to give them back a sense of autonomy, identity, and dignity in terms of where they lived.

Of course the other motivation was to kill off everyone that wasn't German, so I'm by no means vindicating him. Because of point A I'd agree with you, but if I were making your point I wouldn't bother including the motive.  

[zz1000zz]

that_fairy

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that humans are better than animals- only different. My point was to describe ways in which we are different.
About the genocide, animals will actually do similar things. They will kill off entire tribes of other animals. However, it isn't wrong when animals do it because they A. dont have a concept that killing something you dislike is morally wrong and B. they generally kill to gain something like habitat or food or mates rather than pure hatred. I'm not saying here that animals are bad- only informing you of something you seem to not have known.
I will continue to disagree about animals having morals. Animals can feel a wide array of emotions. Happyness, sadness, anger, love. Animals can be altruistic or cruel. However, they do not have a sense of 'it is wrong because it is wrong' or 'it is wrong because God said so.' They have a sense of 'it is wrong because it makes me feel sad [for whatever reason]. A dog does not know that stealing food is wrong; however, it does understand that if it does so and gets cought, it will get in trouble. A dog will comfort a sick child but will not care for the fright of a small cat it has cornered.

Genocide carries the connotation of destroying a group because of hatred. Generally killing others for resources is not viewed as a genocide (see: wars). But yes, i did know that about animals.

As for animals and morals, there is no way to *know* the truth. Humans simply cannot understand animals well enough to determine if they do have the ability to believe in a greater being or code. If they did believe in such, we would have no way to know. We can make all of the guesses we want, but the truth is that there is no way to explain how humans can believe in a god (scientifically speaking, that is), much less determine what another can believe.

Berezi

We have control over a very large set of resources, unlike most other of the inhabitants of this earth. By virtue of that, we are elevated above the other parts of creation.

True, but that form of elevation is the same form which elevates rich people over poor people. It has no meaning for religious or moral views.  

[Berezi]

zz1000zz

True, but that form of elevation is the same form which elevates rich people over poor people. It has no meaning for religious or moral views.

That's true at the core of the issue. However, even that can have a meaning on religious or moral views. If rich people do have a lot of control over poor people simply because they own most everything the poor person needs, it should be the responsibility of the rich to help the poor rather than exploit the poor, both for the rich person's good and for the benefit of the poor.

History shows us that if poor people are exploited, after a long enough time they will rebel. If a rich person wants to maintain those riches, they'd better make sure the poor people are happy.

Of course, this only gets a moral twist if you want it to. It has that possibility of meaning something more, but only if one makes it mean something more.  

[zz1000zz]

Berezi

zz1000zz

True, but that form of elevation is the same form which elevates rich people over poor people. It has no meaning for religious or moral views.

That's true at the core of the issue. However, even that can have a meaning on religious or moral views. If rich people do have a lot of control over poor people simply because they own most everything the poor person needs, it should be the responsibility of the rich to help the poor rather than exploit the poor, both for the rich person's good and for the benefit of the poor.

History shows us that if poor people are exploited, after a long enough time they will rebel. If a rich person wants to maintain those riches, they'd better make sure the poor people are happy.

Of course, this only gets a moral twist if you want it to. It has that possibility of meaning something more, but only if one makes it mean something more.

I suppose that is true, but if one considers animals to be souless, than it has no bearing as they would merely be property, not actual beings we are obliged to help. After all, if they lack the qualities of a human, there is little reason to distinguis between animals and, say, a flower.

Or so one could say. At this level it is pretty much just a matter of personal belief.  

[Berezi]

zz1000zz

I suppose that is true, but if one considers animals to be souless, than it has no bearing as they would merely be property, not actual beings we are obliged to help. After all, if they lack the qualities of a human, there is little reason to distinguis between animals and, say, a flower.

Or so one could say. At this level it is pretty much just a matter of personal belief.

Agreed.

The point wasn't that it necessarily should have a moral twist, just that it's possible to interpret this elevated status as something moral.  

[The Noble Protoman.exe]

zz1000zz

Master Protoman_exe

Because god made us with his own hands. Unlike the animals whom he spake into existance.

God gave humans souls, he did not give animals souls. That would be the only difference.

Oh bother, you didn't even give it a thought before you shot it down.

Still, I just don't know when to concede.