Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Human/Non-Human Animals
Well, i personal dont think there is a difference. i mean an animal is an animal! They each have their own unique features to them. Why is it up to us to define them or to classify them. They just a part of the cycle. Time and space moves on with or with out them, just as it would with or with out you and me! There is no distinct feature that sets one apart from another and thats that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
It is incredibly naive to say that there is no difference between humans and non-humans. It is true, why is it up to us humans to classify non-humans? However Ragsdale contradicts himself. First he says that they each(species)have their own unique features, but then comes to the conclusion that "There is no distinct feature that sets one apart from another and thats that." It is hard to follow Ragsdale argument, but it is clear that there are difference between humans and non-humans and one can not argue against that.
I disagree with the idea that all animals are the same. We may all have essential needs to life, such as eating and sleeping, but that doesn't make us all the same. R.G. Frey provides us with a key difference between Human and non-human animals. It is the absence of beliefs; “I do not see how a creature could have the concept of belief without being able to distinguish between true and false beliefs” (Frey 57).
I would have to disagree with the idea that there are no differences between humans and animals. Humans need more than just the basic necessities of life. We crave goals and dreams. Singer states that "normal adult human beings have mental capacities that will, in certain circumstances, lead them to suffer more than animals would in the same circumstances." If humans and animals have varying mental capacities, how can there be no differences between us?
What I understand from this entry is that Jeremiah believes that there are no differences between human and non-human animals. In that sense he must believe that humans and animals hold equal moral status or have the same rights. I feel that this is not true. In our society we a have a social food chain. In General, humans are on top and animals are on the bottom. Whether it is our complex language or our thought out incentives, humans are superior to animals. Going along this "social chain" idea, Baruch Brody believes "that as humans we have special obligations to ourselves"(Brody41)
I disagree with Jeremiah's opinion on animals. He does not offer any argument besides the fact that the world goes on with or without them. He also claims that there is no distinct feature that sets animals and humans apart. This is simply not true. Humans have emotions and are able to communicate through speech with one another. Animals do not have emotions and are unable to communicate in the same way humans are. Carl Cohen brings up the same argument in his case against Tom Regan. "Rats posses inherent value in sense one for the same reason that humans do, because they they have subjective interests as humans also have. But from these primitive interests no moral rights can be inferred (Cohen 29). Cohen is saying that just because animals have some similar feelings to humans these are just primitive feelings and are not equal to the feelings of humans. I believe Cohen presents a solid argument that disproves Jeremiah's theory.
Although the author brings up a good question as to why should it be up to us to classify what is an animals, I disagree with his belief that we are all the same. There are definitely many features that set human animals apart from non-human animals. One main feature is the ability to have desires. R. G. Frey explains this difference as a lack of language. "If what is believed is that a certain declarative sentence is true, then no creature which lacks language can have beliefs; and without beliefs, a creature cannot have desires" (Frey57).
Post a Comment