Human life vs Animal life

[Leequilibrium]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

Woah woah, I think this subject of whether or not humans are animals is very relevant to this discussion, and very on-topic.

The reason I gave such examples is because you cannot just assume humans are animals because we're both mammals. I've heard some pretty good arguments in favor of the assertion, and the one you gave was not one of them. This is not some sort of "truth" that you automatically suppose is reality because you heard some teacher say so, or read a couple of articles that assumed the point. No. We're going to talk about this...

The first point that should be brought up in a debate like "Human Life vs. Animal Life" is the establishment of the view of whether or not humans are animals. Are they? Because we possess a biological semblence, does that make us part of the classification?

Or being more unambiguous, what is the "fundamental" significance of the phrase "humans are animals"? I've been around hundreds of people who believe otherwise, and for good reason. Are these people all crazy? Or is there a legitimate point being made, here?

You've misunderstood. I didn't say that whether or not humans are animals is irrelevant to the topic... far from it! I think it's an absolutely essential aspect of the debate, which is why I addressed it in my reply. What I said is that the comparisons you made were irrelevant to the topic of "whether or not an animal is a human" .

I believe it's fairly insulting you'd assume I'd only reach the conclusion that humans are animals because "some teacher said so" or because I read it somewhere. It is a conclusion that I have come to through my own freedom of thought. Please don't degrade your argument by assuming that your beliefs are more thoroughly researched.

I do not believe that people who think humans are not animals are crazy. However, I do not believe their belief.

My belief that humans are animals is based on biological similarities and my belief in the theory of evolution, amongst other things.

I wasn't attempting to debase your opinion on the matter by countering it with my own. I'm simply asserting my world view for the context of the debate. I could make this clear in future by putting "It is my belief that..." or "In my opinion..." before all of my statements... but I hope that it would be clear that this is my opinion based on the fact that I was the one who said it .

This is the reason that I believe a human's right to kill an animal is equivalent to that animal's right to kill a human. That's my opinion on the main topic at its basest form... I'm sure I'll go into more detail as the thread develops.

[Woodsprite]

I'm not for the killing of blackbirds just for the sake of it. It seems they were being a nuisance to the crops. Nuisances should be taken care of. How? Well, shooting them shouldn't be considered "wrong" because they're causing problems; very serious problems.

I'm reminded of "To Kill a Mockingbird":

Atticus: I remember when my daddy gave me that gun. He told me that I should never point it at anything in the house; and that he'd rather I'd shoot at tin cans in the backyard. But he said that sooner or later he supposed the temptation to go after birds would be too much, and that I could shoot all the blue jays I wanted - if I could hit 'em; but to remember it was a sin to kill a mockingbird.

Jem: Why?

Atticus: Well, I reckon because mockingbirds don't do anything but make music for us to enjoy. They don't eat people's gardens, don't nest in the corncrib, they don't do one thing but just sing their hearts out for us.

[Human No More]

In self defence, if there is not a reasonable way to drive it off otherwise (most animals that attack humans can be scared off and will only attack if provoked, extremely hungry or threatened, or the person does the wrong thing to make themselves a target) then that should be done if at all possible - most wild animals that kill humans either do so when humans attempt to interact with them, if they mistake humans for a more vulnerable prey animal, or if threatened and cornered.

Preemptively is not right unless a man-made problem is causing them to become a threat (individual animals such as bears that have become accustomed to humans and lost their fear of them) or there is overpopulation that makes them become a threat to people and/or to the biodiversity of the area, and then it should only lower the population to a sustainable level and not damage their ability to survive in the long term.

Humans ARE animals. Sentient ones, but animals nonetheless, but to me, sentience is the important factor.

[Aketuan]

Originally Posted by Human No More

Humans ARE animals. Sentient ones, but animals nonetheless, but to me, sentience is the important factor.

I tend to agree with this statement.
I believe that humans are animals, but the main distinction is sentience. As for the examples given in the first post, I believe that killing animals should be absolute bottom of the bucket last decision. If there is any other way to resolve the problem without killing, it should be exercised. Capture the fly and take it outside...as for the birds eating the crops, find a passive way to keep them out...ie scarecrow. If a human life is in danger, do what is necessary to save the human, preferably without any harm to the animal.

Just my thoughts.

[Sonoran Na'vi]

Whether or not humans are animals comes down to the definition of "animal." For scientific purposes, humans are animals. We share the characteristics established for the kingdom Animalia and are thus members of this particular classification. If we choose a more colloquial version of "animal," humans and animals are usually set apart from one another. Thus, scientifically, we are animals but often when people mention animals as if they are a separate group from humans, they are doing so not using a strict scientific definition of the term "animal" for the purposes of distinction between humans and all other animals.

[Tsyal Makto]

And what of dolphins? If we are not animals, based on sentience, then if dolphins are proved to be sentient in the future, then they would not be animals anymore, either, based on that logic. Same with neanderthals and other prehistric humanoids.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

And what of dolphins? If we are not animals, based on sentience, then if dolphins are proved to be sentient in the future, then they would not be animals anymore, either, based on that logic. Same with neanderthals and other prehistric humanoids.

Nobody ever said sentient beings aren't animals. Indeed, I said that humans are just sentient animals, nothing more.

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

The conclusion is loaded, though. The assumption is that all mammals are animals, when that's up to debate.

If you admit your point is fallacious, why make it? This is certainly not the first time someone has called you out on intentional use of fallacy.
Under the actual taxonomic definition of animal, then yes, all mammals are animals because mammal is a subtype of that kingdom (under the domain eukaryotes). Equally, by definition, humans are animals - they have a species, genus, family, order, class and phylum, all of which belong to animalia.

caveman - I understand the part about the importance of life, but not all life is equal - if you consider all life equal, then do you avoid stepping on an ant? Do you avoid using antibacerial soap?, would you allow an animal atatcking a person to continue doing so rather than stop it doing an and in doing so potentially injure or kill it?
The vast majority of people would not, therefore they are making a decision about which forms of life they find more important or more deserving of different treatment. There is nothing wrong with the fact that 99.9% of people WILL make decisions on which life they value more, at all, as long as all life still gets basic respect.

[Fosus]

Originally Posted by Human No More

Would you allow an animal atatcking a person to continue doing so rather than stop it doing an and in doing so potentially injure or kill it?

No. And I wouldn't allow a human attacking another human either. Or Human attacking an animal.

[caveman]

Originally Posted by Human No More

caveman - I understand the part about the importance of life, but not all life is equal - if you consider all life equal, then do you avoid stepping on an ant? Do you avoid using antibacerial soap?, would you allow an animal atatcking a person to continue doing so rather than stop it doing an and in doing so potentially injure or kill it?
The vast majority of people would not, therefore they are making a decision about which forms of life they find more important or more deserving of different treatment. There is nothing wrong with the fact that 99.9% of people WILL make decisions on which life they value more, at all, as long as all life still gets basic respect.

I don't know what to say, other than you missed the point

Life is awesome. Plain and simple.

It's like being a kid - just having a simple appreciation for all the plants and animals because they're fascinating, and we recognize life is something special.

So to answer your questions:

I would avoid stepping on all bugs. Bugs are cool! Especially ants. Individually they seem small, but together they can build huge ant mounds and dig elaborate caves. And sometimes you'll see them carrying leaves to their underground hideouts. Fascinating!

I use antibacterial soap. Mothers know best.

As for the wolf - let me answer your question with another question: Would a pack of wolves simply watch if I attacked one of their own?

So, there is judgement. I just don't think of it as, "this life is more significant than the other life." I just think of it as life, and life is cool. So although I might hurt it sometimes (what animal doesn't), for the most part I try my best to promote its wellbeing as a whole.

[Elyannia]

Most animals are more afraid of humans than humans are afraid of animals. So if there is some way to keep the animal alive I am all for it. I mean, that's why tranquilizers were invented.

[Sonoran Na'vi]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

Clouds are 100% water. Water is in snow cones. Snow cones are also 100% water. That means clouds are snow cones.

Roses are flowers. So are daisies. That means daisies are roses.

Examples of good reasoning, but bad conclusions. I could go on..

Actually, your examples are examples of deductive fallacies.

Where as the logic in:

All humans are mammals
All mammals are animals
Therefore all humans are animals

does not suffer from any deductive fallacy (at least not that I can see).

[Woodsprite]

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

All humans are mammals
All mammals are animals
Therefore all humans are animals

The conclusion is loaded, though. The assumption is that all mammals are animals, when that's up to debate.

[Sonoran Na'vi]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

The conclusion is loaded, though. The assumption is that all mammals are animals, when that's up to debate.

Why wouldn't all mammals be animals? What else would they be? But under the scientific definition of the term "animal," all mammals would be animals.

[Woodsprite]

Originally Posted by Sonoran Na'vi

Why wouldn't all mammals be animals? What else would they be? But under the scientific definition of the term "animal," all mammals would be animals.

The assertion takes into account all mammals, which would include humans. That's where the debate is.

[Sonoran Na'vi]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

The assertion takes into account all mammals, which would include humans. That's where the debate is.

I'm a little confused as to where the debate is. It's not in the scientific community, as in regard to science humans are animals. In order to say that humans are not animals, one would need to redefine "animal" in such a way as to deliberately not include humans in the definition. This would conflict with the scientific definition of "animal." In this thread, it seems that the use of "animal" is meant to denote all animals that are not human, which is fine. But I do not see how humans are not animals in the scientific sense.


The argument:

All humans are mammals
All mammals are animals
Therefore all humans are animals

is correct if we use scientific definitions of the terms.