What separates man from beast? Like this question and many more, there is no black and white answer. In a plethora of cases, where various human actions are performed, we can see some of the most primal, instinctual movements and actions, either towards another human or object, either right or wrong. For instance, while watching the news on any given day, one can witness countless examples of grievous crimes towards man. However, conversely in the professional sports world there are athletes, whose physical ability is comparable to that of some of the strongest and most agile animals. Likewise, while observing the animal kingdom, whether it is from your living room or in person, you can peer into the lives of animals reacting and adapting to environmental factors and threats in an almost human way. The curiosity of lizards, dogs, cats, and more can be very much like that of a small child. The way birds and squirrels build nests, and how lions and bears inhabit dens to keep shelter for their young is a natural instinct that can be found in animals and humans alike. HA and NHA while very different are very much similar. So what separates us? Many will make the argument that because animals cannot speak in any sort of tongue, they are not intelligent. But that like almost every argument is a matter of opinion. When it comes to the very core of the question, it reduces to a matter of moral. Should animals be treated as so? I believe to an extent yes. Should they be tortured or murdered for no reason? It would be inhuman to do so. With that in mind I believe that the use of animals for resource is necessary, mostly for the use of food, or if in the environment for clothing and other tools. I believe all of this to be true because we are separate species, humans being the more advanced. Our advancement in intelligence and perception of thought is what distinguishes HA from NHA. This distinct separation is what not only rationalizes but also makes necessary our use of NHA for survival and resource.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
As Timothy pointed out, the difference between non human animals and human animals can be a difficult distinction to see. In summary, when we compare traits of both NHA and HA, we see that physically we are similar to some NHA, and we see that HA and NHA react to situations similarly, as far as curiosity and protection are concerned. It is not entirely true, however, that intellect completely separates us. Peter Singer even states that some animals are more intellectually aware of suffering. He says, " apes, monkeys, dogs, cats, an even mice and rats are intelligent, more aware of what is happening to them, more sensitive t pain, and so on, than many severely brain damaged humans barely surviving in hospital wards and other institutions." Because this distinction can be argued, intellect does not justify using animals as a 'survival' resource. He says that Eskimos living in harsh conditions, where killing animals determines survival or not, justifies eating animals. Singer even says, "if animals count in their own right, our use of animals for food becomes questionable-especially when animal flesh is a luxury rather than a necessity." This also implies that, if an animal believes itself to count, then killing it would be like murder, because you would be taking a life without just cause, preventing that life from experiencing any more pleasure or happiness, instead you inflict suffering upon it. I think that if human animals are so much more resourceful than animals, then we can certainly find a way to live and be happy without inflicting pain upon another being.
Post a Comment