Are humans superior to animals?

Turgonian · Post by **Turgonian** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 1:29 am

an ape wrote:I suspect that all animals, whether a lowly insect or a sophisticated ape, such as myself, possess varying degrees of what might be called consciousness or self-awareness. The spectrum goes from a creature that barely reacts to one who can really think - the "experts" use up quite a bit of debate time on this. Amongst this elite group of experts, however, there is no argument about the view that HUMAN consciousness resides in a special category, unattainable by even the smartest of my group.

When a human baby only attains self-consciousness at the age of two? Do you know how much more sophisticated a two-year-old is compared to even an adult ape?

Turgonian · Post by **Turgonian** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 7:39 am

What, must an ape lecture me?

P.S. I thought you meant that the experts all thought human intellect was actually attainable by animals. On more careful rereading, I see that you're saying the experts all think human intellect is not attainable by apes or any other being. Sorry, I was confused.

godslanguage · Post by **godslanguage** » Thu Nov 02, 2006 9:06 am

an ape wrote:That's why the experts debate about it, you silly man

an ape

(You forgot to put your signature, just making sure we know your an ape.

)

faithinware · Post by **faithinware** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 3:04 pm

How did this thread start logically? I am sorry to be blatant like this but since humans are animals, it doesn't make much sense to me.

Maybe it should say: Are humans the most superior animal? In that case, I would have to say, not sure. We are the most capable, and since history is written by the winners, would have to say humans are at the top of the food chain. (unless of course the human without a gun, meets the bear i a cage).

sandy_mcd · Post by **sandy_mcd** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:54 pm

faithinware wrote:... I ... would have to say humans are at the top of the food chain. (unless of course the human without a gun, meets the bear i a cage).

More likely, the human, with or without a gun, in or out of a cage (do these situations happen to you often? just curious:-), will be killed and eaten by bugs too small to even see.

Turgonian · Post by **Turgonian** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:20 am

faithinware wrote:...since humans are animals, it doesn't make much sense to me.

Humans are far more than animals. They have art, religion, reason, morality, and a soul.

faithinware · Post by **faithinware** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:26 pm

Humans are animals, it doesn't matter that they have other things.
We are Mammals to be specific. Made up of the same type of dna as other animals.

The Title is still incorrect. And to assert that we aren't animals is a point of arrogance.
You may consider the culture of humans relative to the culture of animals like the ape, or cats etc... They have their own culture and way about them. We human animals are not necessarily superior just because we can think and do science.
If you went to Africa and lived with a tribe for a few weeks to see how their culture is, you would sincerly miss the culture you came from. And visa versa. In fact when we encuturalize certain tribes back in the 70's, the men and women from those tribes had retro-grade amnesia to what life was like before we made it different.
Consider the affect we have on others.

Turgonian · Post by **Turgonian** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:01 pm

Apes and cats don't have a 'culture'; they have instinct. Culture is shaped. In fact, the very word culture is closely related to cultus, showing that a 'culture' used to be closely centered around a religion. Mere animals don't worship.
And of course African tribes have a completely different culture. But they have a culture, with religion, art, philosophy, &c. Animals don't. Biologically, humans are mammals. But a human, unlike brute life, has more parts than the biological one.

Of course humans are superior; they're the crown of God's creation, made to rule the earth -- with its animals. Just because we were made to do this, we have a God-given responsibility to do it well.

faithinware · Post by **faithinware** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:52 pm

I take it you don't have cats, and therefore aren't able to observe their behavior. Ask any cat person on any forum, whether they have their own culture.

Check this link out if you don't believe me.
http://www.wildlifeprotection.net/Cruelty/cruelty4.html

bizzt · Post by **bizzt** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 2:52 pm

faithinware wrote:I take it you don't have cats, and therefore aren't able to observe their behavior. Ask any cat person on any forum, whether they have their own culture.

Check this link out if you don't believe me.
http://www.wildlifeprotection.net/Cruelty/cruelty4.html

Cats don't have their own Culture. As per the Definition given I would say definately not. They have their Primal Instinct of Survival but they don't create Art, or philosophy etc... At least I have not seen my Cat creating such things on his own.

faithinware · Post by **faithinware** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:26 pm

your right, cats don't worship if you define culture that way.
However they do have manners.

They will stretch their hind legs as they approach you to indicate they are asking for an interaction.

Apes don't have culture, but they listen to certain types of music, and will enjoy certain types of music vs other types of music.

No, Apes are too smart to worship a Godess.

We on the other hand, do we really have culture. When one group of people dislike art that other groups of people like. We have much disagreement about what is culture even in our own society. Even though we share these attributes of being able to enjoy and create art, is that how we define significants over other species?
In other words, would you intentionally cause harm to your neihbors Dog? And if it isn't important, why are there laws against this?

consider it is what we define to be valuable, that makes it so. Where we have disagreement, we should maybe consider more carefully how to define value.

sandy_mcd · Post by **sandy_mcd** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:33 pm

Turgonian wrote:Apes and cats don't have a 'culture'; they have instinct.

Bacteria are cultured.

Turgonian · Post by **Turgonian** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 12:21 pm

Undoubtedly cats and apes have their ways. But be wary of the Clever Hans fallacy. See the article A Philosophical Critical Analysis of Recent Ape-Language Studies on the main board.

Of course humans have different cultures and different tastes. But have two apes ever looked at the sunset and told each other, 'That's beautiful!'? No: no animal 'language' has a word for 'beautiful' (nor do they have grammar and syntax).
And have apes ever tried to reproduce the idea of 'sunset' by drawing one? Again: no.

faithinware · Post by **faithinware** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 4:41 pm

Basically your postillating that because we humans have bigger brains, we should have more rights than apes do.

I am not going to disagree, but even so, we humans live and die despite what we think of apes.

When we talk of morals and ethics, do no harm comes to mind.
Here is a moral challenge.

If we choose to feed starving Africans, and thereby double their population in 10 years, do we cause harm to that society? Now we have just doubled the starvation in Africa, by trying to fix a problem that exists currently.

What is better? Just don't know the answer to this one.

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:08 pm

faithinware wrote:Basically your postillating that because we humans have bigger brains, we should have more rights than apes do.

I am not going to disagree, but even so, we humans live and die despite what we think of apes.

When we talk of morals and ethics, do no harm comes to mind.
Here is a moral challenge.

If we choose to feed starving Africans, and thereby double their population in 10 years, do we cause harm to that society? Now we have just doubled the starvation in Africa, by trying to fix a problem that exists currently.

What is better? Just don't know the answer to this one.

The Wiccan standard of "Do no Harm" is an interesting claim. On what basis do you decide what is harmful and what is not?