Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Human/Nonhuman Animals
It is a hard, maybe even impossible, to draw a line between humans and non-humans. Many of the characteristics that people use to draw these lines have to do with metaphysical things like consciousness. However, how are we to know if an animal has consciousness or not? Or reason. How are we to know if a nonhuman animal uses reason when making decisions? I feel that since non of these instances can be proved or disproved they should not play a role in drawing the line between categories. I would argue that the divider should be based on reoccurring traits that we find in both classes. For example. To say something is a 'human' it should use advanced tools, communicate with a sophisticated language system, and be dominant over the world around it. As for non human animals we would see characteristics like scavenging for food, having a human master, and taking an secondary role in the world around it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I believe your guidelines for distinction between non-human and human animals are too "black and white". You say yourself that it may be impossible to draw such a line, yet you'd be willing to separate the two groupings by observing such attributes as a sophisticated use of language. Peter Singer says, "It is true that, with the exception of those apes who have been taught to communicate by sign language, they cannot actually say that they are feeling pain - but then when my daughter was very young she could not talk, either." Is his daughter not human? This example counters your guidelines. On another note, the apes capable of sign language, to me, counts as sophisticated communication. I know i do not know sign language. I insist that i am not attempting to insult, rather than to point out such contradictions.
You begin your argument disproving of the idea that there are distinct characteristics and traits that separate nonhuman and human animals, yet you come to a very anthropocentric conclusion. You state that "To say something is a 'human' it should use advanced tools, communicate with a sophisticated language system, and be dominant over the world around it". But to this end I ask, are you referring here to all of mankind? It wouldn't seem so. The most basic of humans, infants and the enfeebled, are by no means masters of a sophisticated language, nor are they masters of the world around them (and by world around them, in assuming you mean mankind as well as animals other than humans). Yet, are they not still considered human? Adversely, you maintain that in non human animals "we would see characteristics like scavenging for food, having a human master, and taking a secondary role in the world around it." Not all non-human animals have a human master. I think here you're trying to refer to animals that have been domesticated. But what about the undomesticated animals, such as wild sharks, untamed lions and ferocious bears, are they any less of animals? As far as taking a "secondary role", I believe what you were trying to establish is the idea that humans can dominate animals. But what if a human is attacked and killed by a tiger snake or bitten red back spider - who is secondary then?
Post a Comment