Humanism vs Ajna

[Ajna]

I propose that ALL life is equal.

A human, a cricket, a dog, a rat, a tree, a flower... all things that live.. are beautiful or at least significant on the same scale.

This means that if someone were to walk up to you who is reading this post right now, and shoot you in the head... it would be of equal and no less or more significance than if you were to shoot my neighbors dog in the head...

and on a more extreme level, for the sake of a good and lengthy debate... i believe that same act of you being shot is of equal value to someone cutting down a tree, picking a flower, or swatting a fly.

Discuss.

 

[Sucumbio]

I'd agree with you except that my Ego won't let me.

 

[Ajna]

I'd agree with you except that my Ego won't let me.

Touche'
I imagine this thread will have several of the same responses... but in paragraph beating around the bush form

 

[Dre89]

I disagree entirely about animals being on the same level as us, as arrogant as it sounds.

The reality is, our form/structure/essence is far more complex than that of an animal's. This will be grossly oversimplified, but animals can only do what is natural for them, which is why predating on other animals is perfectly fine. Because they can only do what is natural, they do not possess the capabiltiy to rebell against an ecosystem and cause disharmoney without human intervention.

Humans however are different. According to Aristotle, what makes humans distinct from animals is that we are only creatures on Earth that can be otherwise than our nature. In other words, only we can do what is unnatural for our species.

Aristotle believes that humans must seek to achieve a perfect harmony between reason and the bodily desires. When one indulges in the rampant pursuit of luxuries and sensual pleasures, he is looked down upon, because he has lowered hismelf to the level of animals. For animals, this sensualist pursuit of pleasure is perfectly fine, for it is natural for them, but it is not for us. If someone mercilessly tortures and murders children, he is considered the scum of society, even worse than the greedy sensualist, for in exhibiting this sickening behaviour, he has cast himself even lower than animals, because no animal exhibits such sadistic behaviour (of course I know they kill, but it's for natural purposes).

This ability to be otherwise than our own nature is where we get morality from. Fulfiling our nature is to be virtuous, going the other way and ****** women is failing to fulfill our nature, failing to be human. This is why we have morality yet animals don't. This is also where we get objective morality from, because it relates to the human form, not just what the culture deems socially agreeable.

We are also the only species not governed by an ecosystem, Not only that, but we are the only species that has developed practices which if anything, actually go against the 'survival of the fittest' or 'continuation of the species' ethoses.

The thing is, none of these attributes have anything to do with humans being the most intelligent species. Intelligence would not be required to be otherwise than one's nature.

You can always tell when someone has misunderstood the argument when they try to start telling me how intelligent animals are. Admittedly though, this was an oversimplified account of the argument.

Also, the fact you think that humans only believe they are different or superior to animals is because of arrogance, firstly contradicts your alleged skepticism you expressed in your religion thread, and suggests you haven't really done any reading on these issues.

No offence, but putting this thread and the one on religion together, it doesn't seem you've really done any reading on either, and it seems you just make broad sweeping statements about people's reasoning, which in truth only apply to the simple-minded people off the street who aren't educated at all in these matters. Again I don't mean to sound elitist, but the intellectual 'metagame' is far beyond the level of thinking you seem to think it's at.

 

[Eor]

I propose that ALL life is equal.

A human, a cricket, a dog, a rat, a tree, a flower... all things that live.. are beautiful or at least significant on the same scale.

This means that if someone were to walk up to you who is reading this post right now, and shoot you in the head... it would be of equal and no less or more significance than if you were to shoot my neighbors dog in the head...

and on a more extreme level, for the sake of a good and lengthy debate... i believe that same act of you being shot is of equal value to someone cutting down a tree, picking a flower, or swatting a fly.

Discuss.

Normally when you make a claim you should provide evidence for it. Until you do there isn't really a debate. But I'll try anyways

While you don't mention morality directly, it's heavily implied in your post. However, you'd have to define why killing is bad. Instead of getting into that whole argument, I'll simply accept that we both murder, on a whole, is generally bad, probably because of the fact that it robs someone of their life, or causes suffering to those who new the person.

However, how would that be the same as a tree? While it could be bad to cut down or destroy a tree, tree's are not as complicated as we are. They do not have emotions, nor can they feel physical pain. They are not self aware. In essence, destroying a tree is not robbing it of it's life, no more then destroying a computer is robing a computer of it's life. However, we can say that killing a tree is bad because of the natural habitat, animals that live there, and so forth.

Same for an animal. Killing a dog is bad, but they are not as aware as we are. It's not even proven that they even have self awareness. So while killing a dog could be bad, it wouldn't be much of a life to destroy as a humans. Same with the loss others would feel. Loosing a dog is a much lower suffering for most people then losing an acquaintance.

Since you did not define reasons for your views I had to improvise and assume them, so if your reasons are different then the ones I stated then mention that.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I propose that ALL life is equal.

A human, a cricket, a dog, a rat, a tree, a flower... all things that live.. are beautiful or at least significant on the same scale.

This means that if someone were to walk up to you who is reading this post right now, and shoot you in the head... it would be of equal and no less or more significance than if you were to shoot my neighbors dog in the head...

and on a more extreme level, for the sake of a good and lengthy debate... i believe that same act of you being shot is of equal value to someone cutting down a tree, picking a flower, or swatting a fly.

Discuss.

Hmm, I entirely disagree for some reason. I value human life more than any other form of life. However, I am concerned about animal life and plant life as well.

The reason I think that human life is more important than plant-life at least is that we have a great capacity to suffer. They don't. Bacteria or plankton don't either. In my opinion life is just extremely complicated and beautiful chemistry with no inherent meaning. However I find this view remarkably humbling and grand, also it means that I can give my life meaning rather than adhering to some other meaning. (a bit off-topic though)

Another thing, if you were a doctor and you actually believed that all living things were equal, and that the life of a bacterium is equal to the life of a human, would you prescribe anti-biotics to someone who is suffering from a lethal disease such as anthrax?

Or what's your opinion on eating food? We need to kill food to eat it! If murder was equivalent to harvesting wheat, or rice, should we stop eating these products, and if so how are we going to survive?

The problem I have with this philosophy, is that it doesn't really make sense and it raises numerous moral conundrums.

 

[Ajna]

I disagree entirely about animals being on the same level as us, as arrogant as it sounds.

The reality is, our form/structure/essence is far more complex than that of an animal's. This will be grossly oversimplified, but animals can only do what is natural for them, which is why predating on other animals is perfectly fine. Because they can only do what is natural, they do not possess the capabiltiy to rebell against an ecosystem and cause disharmoney without human intervention.

Humans however are different. According to Aristotle, what makes humans distinct from animals is that we are only creatures on Earth that can be otherwise than our nature. In other words, only we can do what is unnatural for our species.

And your claiming this shows our superiority? you outlined three reasons for our "form, structure, and essence" being more complex than that of any other animal:
- Capability to rebel against an ecosystem
- Cause disharmony (which i assume you mean in the broadest sense)
- Incapability to do anything which is unnatural for them

For starters, I would be interested to hear any evidence you have of these claims other than that no other creature on the planet has ever expressed these abilities. But if we were to continue assuming that these differences are in place... all you have proved is that we are different. Not superior.
The capability to rebel against an ecosystem is not generally seen, even in your self proclaimed "advanced intellectual metagame" circles to have had a very positive effect for the human race or any other life on the planet.
By rebelling against our ecosystem and essentially forcing it to be an incubator for human life (eliminating threats, capturing and industrializing our food sources and natural resources needed to sustain us such as wood, water, etc.) we have grown and continue to grow in population to the point that it is quickly becoming a potentially dangerous threat to our planet... and its ability to breast feed the human race.

Disharmony is generally only seen as a positive thing if there is a certain order that needs to be rebelled against. In humans case, the harmony of nature and all of its creatures was rebelled against. Our planet's ecosystem is reliant on a biodiversity that we put at great risk by causing this disharmony and creating our dominion over it.

the ability to do what is unnatural from our species, which I would like to hear evidence of other than the current lack of observing another animal displaying this ability, is part of this disharmony. I will speak more on this as this post continues.

So far I believe the reasons you are claiming humans are superior, would only prove that humans were different in nature to other animals on the planet. They would not however prove that we are superior..

Aristotle believes that humans must seek to achieve a perfect harmony between reason and the bodily desires. When one indulges in the rampant pursuit of luxuries and sensual pleasures, he is looked down upon, because he has lowered hismelf to the level of animals. For animals, this sensualist pursuit of pleasure is perfectly fine, for it is natural for them, but it is not for us. If someone mercilessly tortures and murders children, he is considered the scum of society, even worse than the greedy sensualist, for in exhibiting this sickening behaviour, he has cast himself even lower than animals, because no animal exhibits such sadistic behaviour (of course I know they kill, but it's for natural purposes).

Seeking to achieve perfect harmony between reason and bodily desires would be ideal. Can you give me an example of someone who has achieved this harmony?
"If one indulges in the rampant pursuit of luxuries and sensual pleasures", he is becoming an animal, but its a very specific animal- the human animal. we have a unique nature that is specific to only us. Society has deemed this behavior to be generally taboo. I believe that its morally ambiguous, and certainly not representative of the nature of the rest of life on the planet.
If your previous claims are true, and we are the only creatures "capable" of any kind of chaos we are also the only creatures that are capable of naturally coming to the decision to display the kinds of sadistic behaviors you were referring to. not exactly a detail in the favor of human superiority.

This ability to be otherwise than our own nature is where we get morality from. Fulfiling our nature is to be virtuous, going the other way and ****** women is failing to fulfill our nature, failing to be human. This is why we have morality yet animals don't. This is also where we get objective morality from, because it relates to the human form, not just what the culture deems socially agreeable.

It is the nature of the whole human race to be virtuous? and it is countering the nature of the entire human race to **** women?
Is it not arguable that it is a moral decision to live naturally and go with the grain of nature? If so, is it not possible that humans are the only creature on the planet to not collectively believe that this is an obvious moral plus?
The science of animal sentience is still a wide open and continually growing study. There is no proof that animals are incapable of moral decisions.

We are also the only species not governed by an ecosystem, Not only that, but we are the only species that has developed practices which if anything, actually go against the 'survival of the fittest' or 'continuation of the species' ethoses.

The thing is, none of these attributes have anything to do with humans being the most intelligent species. Intelligence would not be required to be otherwise than one's nature.

You can always tell when someone has misunderstood the argument when they try to start telling me how intelligent animals are. Admittedly though, this was an oversimplified account of the argument.

Also, the fact you think that humans only believe they are different or superior to animals is because of arrogance, firstly contradicts your alleged skepticism you expressed in your religion thread, and suggests you haven't really done any reading on these issues.

It is not a fact that I think humans only believe they are different or superior to animals because of arrogance. Though if i were to make that claim, I believe you are yet to effectively refute it. You have listed several qualities that make us different from other species of animals. But none that can be quantized as superior. The belief that your simple differences are superior, even if your differences frequently involve destructive behavior, could be viewed as arrogant.

No offence, but putting this thread and the one on religion together, it doesn't seem you've really done any reading on either, and it seems you just make broad sweeping statements about people's reasoning, which in truth only apply to the simple-minded people off the street who aren't educated at all in these matters. Again I don't mean to sound elitist, but the intellectual 'metagame' is far beyond the level of thinking you seem to think it's at.

None taken. All I had done before your reply was outline that the debate was to be argument red vs argument blue, and i was representing argument blue (or red)- and offering people to represent argument red (or blue) against me.
But I forgive your misunderstanding, you know what they say about assuming after all...

 

[Ajna]

The reason I think that human life is more important than plant-life at least is that we have a great capacity to suffer. They don't.

This is actually not entirely true. There have been a variety of studies that show that a plants "nervous system" (vascular strands/auxins) is actually more sensitive than some animals.
http://ds9.botanik.uni-bonn.de/zellbio/AG-Baluska-Volkmann/plantneuro/neuroview.php
http://www.department13designs.com/vegan.html

In my opinion life is just extremely complicated and beautiful chemistry with no inherent meaning. However I find this view remarkably humbling and grand, also it means that I can give my life meaning rather than adhering to some other meaning. (a bit off-topic though)

Beautifully thought and expressed.

Another thing, if you were a doctor and you actually believed that all living things were equal, and that the life of a bacterium is equal to the life of a human, would you prescribe anti-biotics to someone who is suffering from a lethal disease such as anthrax?

This I must admit I have not given much thought. Though is it always the case that using the bacterium in this way is harmful to its existence?

Or what's your opinion on eating food? We need to kill food to eat it! If murder was equivalent to harvesting wheat, or rice, should we stop eating these products, and if so how are we going to survive?

I have not claimed that murder is wrong. There are logical reasons to end life- survival is one of them. The cutting down of trees to provide shelter, the harvesting of vegetables, the killing of other animals are all necessary to our existence. However, we are the only creatures on the planet that take more than we need to stay alive. The industrializing of these things is what has inflated our population and given us dominion over nature. A dominion that could very well end up self-destructive and counter productive to its original intent.

 

[Ajna]

While you don't mention morality directly, it's heavily implied in your post. However, you'd have to define why killing is bad. Instead of getting into that whole argument, I'll simply accept that we both murder, on a whole, is generally bad, probably because of the fact that it robs someone of their life, or causes suffering to those who new the person.

I have never claimed that killing is bad. just that the extinguishing of a human life has no greater value than the extinguishing of a dogs life. There are reasonable reasons to kill both.

However, how would that be the same as a tree? While it could be bad to cut down or destroy a tree, tree's are not as complicated as we are. They do not have emotions, nor can they feel physical pain. They are not self aware. In essence, destroying a tree is not robbing it of it's life, no more then destroying a computer is robing a computer of it's life. However, we can say that killing a tree is bad because of the natural habitat, animals that live there, and so forth.

We do not understand the level of consciousness that trees posses, if any at all. It has loosely been proven that they feel physical pain in their own way in several studies. I linked some general information of the plant "nervous system" in the post above this one.
Trees do meet the requirement for life, but their life is very different from that of ours or any animals.
Many people have claimed to have the experience of feeling the presence or consciousness of a tree. This does not constitute any kind of proof, but it does present the possibility.
I cannot prove that trees are sentient, but I do not see how you could prove that they are not. The possibility is plausible though.
I believe the answer is that they should not be taken lightly. Their death is not as simple as yanking a drive from a computer.

Same for an animal. Killing a dog is bad, but they are not as aware as we are. It's not even proven that they even have self awareness. So while killing a dog could be bad, it wouldn't be much of a life to destroy as a humans. Same with the loss others would feel. Loosing a dog is a much lower suffering for most people then losing an acquaintance. .

Its a lower suffering for a person because it is more difficult to relate to a dog. While it may not be proven that they have self awareness, its certainly not proven that they aren't as well. And dogs display a massive amount of promise for getting their sentience proven, due to their obviously broad emotional spectrum and ability to have preferences and habits.

My father lives on a farm where he adopts stray cats and kittens. He literally has over 200 cats on a 50 acre property- some of which strictly have cat-only social lives. I have had the opportunity to observe a very large sample of cats at various ages, breeds, and backgrounds growing up in a similar environment, with similar influences and pressures. The differences in personalities is staggering. The spectrum of differences between the cats behavior is directly comparable to the differences between human personalities.
There was an exclusive social group of orange striped cats that had all arrived at the farm at totally different times from different sources. Really a fascinating concept.
Some cats you would never see, but thier presence could still be proven.
Some cats would hang out near the house and the feeding stations.
I could literally fill pages of little observations ive made about the idiosyncrasies of cat personalities.... the fact that cats have intelligence and sentience is almost undeniable to me.
I believe many other animals, probably more than you realize would prove to be quite individualistic under similar observation.

 

[GoldShadow]

I cannot prove that trees are sentient, but I do not see how you could prove that they are not.

Because they're not. It seems to me like you're disregarding the field of biology? There are no two ways about this. Trees are not and cannot be sentient.

Its a lower suffering for a person because it is more difficult to relate to a dog. While it may not be proven that they have self awareness, its certainly not proven that they aren't as well. And dogs display a massive amount of promise for getting their sentience proven, due to their obviously broad emotional spectrum and ability to have preferences and habits.

Again, based on the biological and zoological evidence, it's quite safe to say they're not.

My father lives on a farm where he adopts stray cats and kittens. He literally has over 200 cats on a 50 acre property- some of which strictly have cat-only social lives. I have had the opportunity to observe a very large sample of cats at various ages, breeds, and backgrounds growing up in a similar environment, with similar influences and pressures. The differences in personalities is staggering. The spectrum of differences between the cats behavior is directly comparable to the differences between human personalities.
There was an exclusive social group of orange striped cats that had all arrived at the farm at totally different times from different sources. Really a fascinating concept.
Some cats you would never see, but thier presence could still be proven.
Some cats would hang out near the house and the feeding stations.
I could literally fill pages of little observations ive made about the idiosyncrasies of cat personalities.... the fact that cats have intelligence and sentience is almost undeniable to me.
I believe many other animals, probably more than you realize would prove to be quite individualistic under similar observation.

You haven't exactly stumbled on anything groundbreaking here. It's very well known that there is a broad range of personality and behavioral types. Welcome to Bio 101!

This is nothing unusual. Animal behavior and heirarchies have been (and are being) studied extensively. I don't know why you think this somehow suggests the possibility of awareness or even sentience. What you've described is just one thing that is necessary for awareness to exist, but not sufficient. Human behavior has some of those traits, but is also many times more complex. Animal behavior can be interesting or complex, but that hardly suggests sentience.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Well Ajna, I disagree that tearing up a piece of grass in front of its grass brethren is no different than ripping a human child into pieces while his/her parents watch. You have to consider things on an emotional level as well. Grass doesn't have emotions.

Spoiler

I like your philosophical debates though.

 

[Ajna]

While I still feel quite strongly in favor of my argument, and will continue heavy research in the field, I do not currently possess enough concrete scientific factual knowledge to continue effectively arguing for the case of plant or even animal sentience. Most of the points I have made thus far are more philosophical in nature. I do plan however to continue this debate at a later time when my current research has reached a point where I can site more tangible references. Well played all.

 

[RDK]

I don't believe in morality so I guess I wouldn't have much to say in this topic except for my own personal views.

Morality is a way sentient organisms deal with each other. We view actions by other people as right or wrong depending on whether they help us or hurt us, directly or indirectly. There is no "objective morality" just like there is no objective "best color".

and on a more extreme level, for the sake of a good and lengthy debate... i believe that same act of you being shot is of equal value to someone cutting down a tree, picking a flower, or swatting a fly.

Plants, I wouldn't agree with. Animals that are capable of self-reflection and though? Yes. However, we all draw the line somewhere, be it at bugs, frogs, hamsters, cats, dogs, dolphins, apes, etc., and none of our opinions are better than anybody else's.

It's kind of like arguing sentience itself. On an intellectual level, I know that I am an amalgamation of organic chemicals, cells, and various other materials. There is nothing immaterial or spiritual about my mind or body. I do not have what is commonly called "free will".

However this does not stop my unconscious mind from acting as if I did. We're hard-wired to believe things that aren't necessarily true; it's necessary for human survival.

Just my two cents. Good topic by the way.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

This is actually not entirely true. There have been a variety of studies that show that a plants "nervous system" (vascular strands/auxins) is actually more sensitive than some animals.
http://ds9.botanik.uni-bonn.de/zellbio/AG-Baluska-Volkmann/plantneuro/neuroview.php
http://www.department13designs.com/vegan.html

I don't quite trust that for some reason...

This I must admit I have not given much thought. Though is it always the case that using the bacterium in this way is harmful to its existence?

Hmm, I don't understand your point. Maybe anthrax was a bad example as it is developed in biological weapons labs. However the point still stands with any other disease that is caused by pathogenic bacteria eg. Golden Staph, TB, Bubonic Plague etc. In a number of cases, survival of the human host is mutually exclusive with survival of the pathogens. Either we die, or it dies.

I have not claimed that murder is wrong. There are logical reasons to end life- survival is one of them. The cutting down of trees to provide shelter, the harvesting of vegetables, the killing of other animals are all necessary to our existence.

I sort of understand your point here. The problem with animal life is, that it runs on death.

However, we are the only creatures on the planet that take more than we need to stay alive. The industrializing of these things is what has inflated our population and given us dominion over nature. A dominion that could very well end up self-destructive and counter productive to its original intent.

Actually I think any animal or organism given the chance will take more than it needs to stay alive. Dogs can become obese, exotic species can invade ecosystems, given the right conditions. Evolution has primed almost every organism to try and get as much food and offspring as possible. They're only really kept in check by competition, predation, lack of food etc.

 

[Dre89]

Morality is a way sentient organisms deal with each other. We view actions by other people as right or wrong depending on whether they help us or hurt us, directly or indirectly. There is no "objective morality" just like there is no objective "best color".

It's not that simple. Whilst certainly the view that there is no morality is plausible (I disagree with that though), you can't sum up morality in two lines.

Morality, in a meta-ethical sense, and probably even a normative-ethical sence is far too complex to be debated on an online board.

Because you're a DHer, I know that you obviously just oversimplified morality into two lines for convenience's sake, and that you wouldn't be ignorant enough to assume that morality is as simple as that. I just don't think there's any point debating what morality is.

I grossly oversimiplied a part of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics in another thread, but that was to demonstrate, rather than to debate morality itself.

I do think applied ethics is worth debating on boards though, of course this is all just my opinion though.

 

[Dre89]

And your claiming this shows our superiority? you outlined three reasons for our "form, structure, and essence" being more complex than that of any other animal:
- Capability to rebel against an ecosystem
- Cause disharmony (which i assume you mean in the broadest sense)
- Incapability to do anything which is unnatural for them

For starters, I would be interested to hear any evidence you have of these claims other than that no other creature on the planet has ever expressed these abilities. But if we were to continue assuming that these differences are in place... all you have proved is that we are different. Not superior.
The capability to rebel against an ecosystem is not generally seen, even in your self proclaimed "advanced intellectual metagame" circles to have had a very positive effect for the human race or any other life on the planet.
By rebelling against our ecosystem and essentially forcing it to be an incubator for human life (eliminating threats, capturing and industrializing our food sources and natural resources needed to sustain us such as wood, water, etc.) we have grown and continue to grow in population to the point that it is quickly becoming a potentially dangerous threat to our planet... and its ability to breast feed the human race.

Disharmony is generally only seen as a positive thing if there is a certain order that needs to be rebelled against. In humans case, the harmony of nature and all of its creatures was rebelled against. Our planet's ecosystem is reliant on a biodiversity that we put at great risk by causing this disharmony and creating our dominion over it.

the ability to do what is unnatural from our species, which I would like to hear evidence of other than the current lack of observing another animal displaying this ability, is part of this disharmony. I will speak more on this as this post continues.

So far I believe the reasons you are claiming humans are superior, would only prove that humans were different in nature to other animals on the planet. They would not however prove that we are superior..






Seeking to achieve perfect harmony between reason and bodily desires would be ideal. Can you give me an example of someone who has achieved this harmony?
"If one indulges in the rampant pursuit of luxuries and sensual pleasures", he is becoming an animal, but its a very specific animal- the human animal. we have a unique nature that is specific to only us. Society has deemed this behavior to be generally taboo. I believe that its morally ambiguous, and certainly not representative of the nature of the rest of life on the planet.
If your previous claims are true, and we are the only creatures "capable" of any kind of chaos we are also the only creatures that are capable of naturally coming to the decision to display the kinds of sadistic behaviors you were referring to. not exactly a detail in the favor of human superiority.




It is the nature of the whole human race to be virtuous? and it is countering the nature of the entire human race to **** women?
Is it not arguable that it is a moral decision to live naturally and go with the grain of nature? If so, is it not possible that humans are the only creature on the planet to not collectively believe that this is an obvious moral plus?
The science of animal sentience is still a wide open and continually growing study. There is no proof that animals are incapable of moral decisions.



It is not a fact that I think humans only believe they are different or superior to animals because of arrogance. Though if i were to make that claim, I believe you are yet to effectively refute it. You have listed several qualities that make us different from other species of animals. But none that can be quantized as superior. The belief that your simple differences are superior, even if your differences frequently involve destructive behavior, could be viewed as arrogant.

/QUOTE]

What I've shown is that the essence of humanity is far more complex than that of all other animals. It's not that every animal has a different essence, their core essences are all the same, except ours are far more complex.

The reason why I feel we are superior is not because are more intelligent, but because we are beyond animal. I agree that difference doesn't necessarily equal superiority, but in this case the difference is a result of being far more complex, emcompassing everything an animal has, plus having more.

Let's say the essence of animals is X, then the human essence is XY. We are part animal, yet we have other aspects that extend beyond that. The fact that when someone lowers themselves to the actions of animals they are looked down upon shows that as well.

According to you, there is no heirarchy of superiority, only difference. By that logic, we would be on the same level as God (supposing He exists), because His being (or non-being) is only 'different' not superior.

For example, M2K is a far more superior brawler than I am. He can do everything I can, plus alot more. The essence of his game is far more complex and multi-dimensional than mine. To play at my level would require him to drastically lower his standards.

If having a far more complex core essence than another being, which encompasses everything that being has, plus far more, is not being superior, then what on Earth is? You cannot argue that superiority is an illusion, it is a reality. Hierarchy is witnessed all over nature.

The fact that you're using the negative aspects of humanity to counter me suggest you don't really understand my argument, because those negative aspects are actually the result of humans being superior. The ironic thing is, you're making it worse for yourself by referring to those negative aspects, because those are what actually highlight how the human essence is superior to that of animals.

Of course there are probably good arguments that advocate animals being on the same level as humans, but the one you used actually strengthened my argument if anything, so you probably need to re-read it if you attempt to counter it again.

Again, I'm not criticising your conclusion, just your premises, particularly those used to counter my argument.

 

[Ajna]

Dre,

I believe all of the critiques your making of my argument, which is a much larger part of your argument than any factual information or poignant speculation, are reflected in your own debating of this subject and the other as well.
I have not claimed that no differences exist in our perceived objective reality that could suggest superiority, I am particularly attacking your opinion that the differences you have outlined for human's being different to other animals as being less than insufficient evidence of our superiority. You are claiming, if I understand your argument correctly, that simply because we have the ability to cause the destruction we have caused that we are superior to other animals. You have decided to ignore my claim that there is no proof of this ability not existing in other beings other than there current lack of exercising it. I am also claiming that in addition to this, our ability to do this that has been exercised, on a global scale makes us the ultimate ****-ups of the earth.
I have already claimed however that I do not currently possess enough concrete scientific knowledge of the subject (which it seems you do not either) to defend it to the end that I wish to. I will continue this debate at a later time when that is not the case.

 

[RDK]

It's not that simple. Whilst certainly the view that there is no morality is plausible (I disagree with that though), you can't sum up morality in two lines.

Morality, in a meta-ethical sense, and probably even a normative-ethical sence is far too complex to be debated on an online board.

Because you're a DHer, I know that you obviously just oversimplified morality into two lines for convenience's sake, and that you wouldn't be ignorant enough to assume that morality is as simple as that. I just don't think there's any point debating what morality is.

I grossly oversimiplied a part of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics in another thread, but that was to demonstrate, rather than to debate morality itself.

I do think applied ethics is worth debating on boards though, of course this is all just my opinion though.

Yes, I did oversimplify. Being a PG mod, my duty is to stimulate discussion between the PG members, so I don't want to make a giant wall of text in an area of the Debate Hall where new members are supposed to be discussing topics.

However I am interested in hearing your views on morality. Go ahead and respond to what little I've already posted.

 

[Sucumbio]

Touche'
I imagine this thread will have several of the same responses... but in paragraph beating around the bush form

I thought so too, but you set the trap, and some fell in. Now my Ego has to speak.

Here's the real rub of this that I've still yet to resolve even after 9 weeks in socio-economics and 9 more weeks in sociobiology.

How can we separate Human Nature from Nature?

I ask this because my professors (and SO many others) all seem to find Humans' behavior as somehow either irresponsible, self-destructing, or other wise damaging to "mother Earth."

???? Why? Cause we have intellect and "should know better?" C'mon... we're all products of the Earth (if we're to assume that's the case, not that we're aliens dropped here by some mother ship) and as such, are entirely natural biological entities, like dogs, rodents, trees, fish, etc etc. How is it that intellect suddenly precludes us from action? Just because we go around absorbing all natural resources to fit our needs, over populating, seemingly undermining the stability of the planet, WHAT OF IT? If "mother nature" was so smart, we wouldn't BE putting so much stress on the world, right? Or... and what I believe, we're not. We're not acting -any- differently than what was "intended" by natural selection, and natural evolution. It's in our nature... to reshape the landscape to suit our needs, to exterminate lesser species who 'get in the way' ... to risk the death of the planet through technology. News Flash: the Earth -will- survive us, regardless of how badly we do, or try to do. Even if the whole thing blows up from Nukes, it'll still be there, just barren, uninhabitable. For a time. But that too will pass, and the process can start all over again. Maybe that's what Life is, a long long cycle from amino acid to atom bomb and back again. I just don't see how living like a tree hugger makes a real difference, it's just a way to sleep at night and have something important to live for, it's a means to an end, it's by no means, the only way or even the right way to live.

Now what does all this have to do w/your thesis "All life is equal?" Actually, in this vein, you're not wrong. However to suggest that cutting down a tree is "no worse" than cutting down a human, well... that's different, and frankly foolish. "Worse" implies value, and value implies morality, and morality implies conscience. Whether a tree feels pain or not is actually irrelevant. It can't fight back, so sucks to be the tree. Point is that Humans -do- have the ability to kill or not, and its in the choice that makes or breaks that person on the scales of morality (which is for the most part an arbitrary assignment of values imparted by society, not entirely, but mostly). This choice is what those others would say is why we MUST be responsible for our actions towards nature. But... can't have it both ways. If it's in our nature to litter, then it's in our nature to murder too.

Conundrum? nah, not really. Because of value, we can afford ourselves the luxury of choice when its convenient.

So, though ridiculous your assertion, it's not inaccurate as far as I can tell. But I won't ever feel ambivalent towards killing. The knowledge that a Tree = Person is moot. People > Trees in my book. And I'm all that matters.

</Ego responding>

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

What I've shown is that the essence of humanity is far more complex than that of all other animals. It's not that every animal has a different essence, their core essences are all the same, except ours are far more complex.

What is this essence you speak of? I understand that humans are very complex animals, especially in the brain department, but what about else where, aren't we much the same as lab rats? We share around 90% of our DNA.

The reason why I feel we are superior is not because are more intelligent, but because we are beyond animal. I agree that difference doesn't necessarily equal superiority, but in this case the difference is a result of being far more complex, emcompassing everything an animal has, plus having more.

Let's say the essence of animals is X, then the human essence is XY. We are part animal, yet we have other aspects that extend beyond that. The fact that when someone lowers themselves to the actions of animals they are looked down upon shows that as well.

Yeah, but let's pick any animal, I can almost guarantee that it does something more than the core animal essence. eg. Bloodhounds have an extremely good sense of smell, so their essence would be XZ. Part animal, and part Bloodhound! So now we know that Bloodhounds are something more than animal, they must be superior to their core animal essence.

All animals have core animal characteristics; animal cells, the inability to photosynthesise, being multicellular etc. However every animal on the planet is more than just these characteristics, they are more than that and so are we. So in other words all animals are superior to the core aspects of animals!

Also what animals actions are so evil? Name almost any animal action and there will be a human equivalent action.

According to you, there is no heirarchy of superiority, only difference. By that logic, we would be on the same level as God (supposing He exists), because His being (or non-being) is only 'different' not superior.

For example, M2K is a far more superior brawler than I am. He can do everything I can, plus alot more. The essence of his game is far more complex and multi-dimensional than mine. To play at my level would require him to drastically lower his standards.

If having a far more complex core essence than another being, which encompasses everything that being has, plus far more, is not being superior, then what on Earth is? You cannot argue that superiority is an illusion, it is a reality. Hierarchy is witnessed all over nature.

Please explain how you know that our core essence is more complex than an animal's? And how do you know of any objective measure for how "good" an animal or human is? To just say that because we have abilities that animals don't doesn't mean we're objectively superior. Also where is this hierarchy you speak of? I want evidence!

Additionally The example of M2K is rather poor, we know he's a better brawler but overall, he isn't objectively superior to you, because you can do something better than he can. We aren't measuring one aspect of humans or animals here, we're measuring the whole picture. As long as they can do something better than we can, they're not objectively superior.

The other major problem I have with the idea about Human superiority over animals is that we are animals. How can you be superior than something you are? Sure we're superior to the core animal essence, but isn't every other animal in the universe? No animal is just an animal, they're something more than that. A tiger is an animal, but not just an animal, it's a tiger. Do you understand what I mean?

I disagree with Ajina's philosophy not for those reasons, but for one main reason that's in-grained into my consciousness; I value human life more than any other form of life. Maybe it's because we're almost all the same because (99.9% of our DNA is shared - I'm 99.9% you!) or maybe it's because it's an evolutionary advantage to value human life more than other forms of life. But the point is that I just do.

 

[Dre89]

Dre,

I believe all of the critiques your making of my argument, which is a much larger part of your argument than any factual information or poignant speculation, are reflected in your own debating of this subject and the other as well.
I have not claimed that no differences exist in our perceived objective reality that could suggest superiority, I am particularly attacking your opinion that the differences you have outlined for human's being different to other animals as being less than insufficient evidence of our superiority. You are claiming, if I understand your argument correctly, that simply because we have the ability to cause the destruction we have caused that we are superior to other animals. You have decided to ignore my claim that there is no proof of this ability not existing in other beings other than there current lack of exercising it. I am also claiming that in addition to this, our ability to do this that has been exercised, on a global scale makes us the ultimate ****-ups of the earth.
I have already claimed however that I do not currently possess enough concrete scientific knowledge of the subject (which it seems you do not either) to defend it to the end that I wish to. I will continue this debate at a later time when that is not the case.

No it's not just that we can cause destruction. The fact we are the only creatures that can cause this destruction is a result of our more complex essence, not the single factor that makes our essence mrer complex.

Also in terms of animals ignoring ecosystems, saying they haven't been put into a situation where they can exercise this ability is illogical, because my whole point is that if they naturally have the ability to ignore ecosystems they would have done so already, yet they haven't.

I can't rewrite my entire argument again, so just read it again lol.

 

[Dre89]

Yeah, but let's pick any animal, I can almost guarantee that it does something more than the core animal essence. eg. Bloodhounds have an extremely good sense of smell, so their essence would be XZ. Part animal, and part Bloodhound! So now we know that Bloodhounds are something more than animal, they must be superior to their core animal essence.

All animals have core animal characteristics; animal cells, the inability to photosynthesise, being multicellular etc. However every animal on the planet is more than just these characteristics, they are more than that and so are we. So in other words all animals are superior to the core aspects of animals!

Also what animals actions are so evil? Name almost any animal action and there will be a human equivalent action.

Please explain how you know that our core essence is more complex than an animal's? And how do you know of any objective measure for how "good" an animal or human is? To just say that because we have abilities that animals don't doesn't mean we're objectively superior. Also where is this hierarchy you speak of? I want evidence!

Additionally The example of M2K is rather poor, we know he's a better brawler but overall, he isn't objectively superior to you, because you can do something better than he can. We aren't measuring one aspect of humans or animals here, we're measuring the whole picture. As long as they can do something better than we can, they're not objectively superior.

The other major problem I have with the idea about Human superiority over animals is that we are animals. How can you be superior than something you are? Sure we're superior to the core animal essence, but isn't every other animal in the universe? No animal is just an animal, they're something more than that. A tiger is an animal, but not just an animal, it's a tiger. Do you understand what I mean?


I disagree with Ajina's philosophy not for those reasons, but for one main reason that's in-grained into my consciousness; I value human life more than any other form of life. Maybe it's because we're almost all the same because (99.9% of our DNA is shared - I'm 99.9% you!) or maybe it's because it's an evolutionary advantage to value human life more than other forms of life. But the point is that I just do.

Ok you've misunderstood me completely. It's just too much effort to have to re-write my entire argument again.

I'm always willing to debate with people, but no offence you and Ajna have just misunderstood too much for arguing back to have any merit.

 

[Ajna]

No it's not just that we can cause destruction. The fact we are the only creatures that can cause this destruction is a result of our more complex essence, not the single factor that makes our essence mrer complex.

Also in terms of animals ignoring ecosystems, saying they haven't been put into a situation where they can exercise this ability is illogical, because my whole point is that if they naturally have the ability to ignore ecosystems they would have done so already, yet they haven't.

I can't rewrite my entire argument again, so just read it again lol.

Its ok, i believe you ineffectively read mine as well. I wasnt claiming that they haven't had the opportunity to put the behavior into effect... I have stated several times that I believe they have no desire or reason to put it into effect...
I am suggesting that its not that another animal is not as complex as a human that causes them not to rebel against their eco system... its a bit of a "nature common sense" that humans seem to have forgotten, in favor of dominion over nature.

 

[Ajna]

Ok you've misunderstood me completely. It's just too much effort to have to re-write my entire argument again.

I'm always willing to debate with people, but no offence you and Ajna have just misunderstood too much for arguing back to have any merit.

Or perhaps you either didnt explain yourself well enough, or had a lack of pertinent/significant information in your post?

 

[Sucumbio]

try not to double post, yo... better to edit your previous post.

Hm, I'm not quite sure -I- even understand the debate at this time... there seems to be some confusion over what each of you are saying to the other.

Dre's point seems to focus on the belief that Humans are "superior" to Animals.
Ajna seems to be refuting the particular reasons why Dre feels this way.
Bob T's along for the ride

So essentially the difficulty here would be to prove somehow that Humans are -definitely- superior to Animals, and therefore are not equal to animals as the OP posits.

Firstly, animals have in fact been known to subvert their own habitats. It can be due to several factors. For instance encroachment by another life form has led to attempts by the original inhabitant to make inhospitable their territory so the other creature won't "want it." Another more obvious example is when overpopulation occurs. This can cause severe damage to the physical landscape, ultimately leading to the population either dying out or being forced to move to another area. Also there are factors in Nature which can lead to this behavior. A river can begin to dry up, for instance, forcing all wetland animals or animals who come to drink to move closer and closer to each other, while simultaneously animals that feast on these animals are also affected, seemingly positively at the outset, but ultimately just as devastated. Point for we're the same.

Secondly, the largest and most important biological difference between humans and other animals is the size of our brain. We are classified as Mammals, and still belong to that class of vertebrates. However our brain size lends itself to increased brain activity. This is not 100 percent unique. Other animals demonstrate problem solving ability for instance. But the size and scope of our ability to reason is far greater than any other animal on earth, so far as we know. Point for we're different.

Third, our impact on the Earth is only seemingly by choice. We are just as confined to the parameters of life as all other organisms, in other words. We are born, we eat, we defecate, we procreate, and we die. Anything beyond this is incidental... our art, culture, society, habits, its all secondary to those basic animal qualities. We are products of the Earth, we're not aliens dropped here from somewhere else. Therefore anything we do, is still technically the Earth doing to itself. Survival of the fittest dictates this to be true, as it does our need to transform the earth to our liking. True our very nature may be self destructive in course, but as we can see so too is that of Nature itself. Point for we're the same.

Now if there's a forth point in favor of humans being different, of being superior, then I'd like to see it. This would bring us back to a tie, and it could go either way. I for one do not personally believe we're superior. I believe we only -think- we're superior, and so we behave thus.

 

[Dre89]

I have stated several times that I believe they have no desire or reason to put it into effect...
I am suggesting that its not that another animal is not as complex as a human that causes them not to rebel against their eco system... its a bit of a "nature common sense" that humans seem to have forgotten, in favor of dominion over nature.

No I do understand you correctly. Part of my point is that animals do not bear the capacity to go beyond 'nature common sense', because they can only do what is natural, their intellectual capacities (not their intelligence,that's different) are more limited than ours. As Aristotle said, we are the only creatures on Earth that can be otherwise than our own nature.

There is obviously alot more to my argument, but to be honest, I really can't be bothered constantly writing up large posts in my defense.
Sucumbio I disagree with your post too but as I said before I can't be bothered debating it, because all my arguments require long posts and I feel I'll just keep repeating myself.

It's not that I don't want to debate, it's just that I was expecting to write one long post detailing my argument, then have people understand me correctly and counter me, to which I could counter back with precise arguments, rather than have to rewrite my entire argument every time lol.

I'm not implying that you guys are stupid for not understanding my argument, I think the misunderstanding is probably just a result from us coming from different fields or perspectives. Most people here seem to argue strictly from scientific perspective, whereas I come from a philosophical one, which is perhaps what creates the problem.

 

[RDK]

No I do understand you correctly. Part of my point is that animals do not bear the capacity to go beyond 'nature common sense', because they can only do what is natural, their intellectual capacities (not their intelligence,that's different) are more limited than ours. As Aristotle said, we are the only creatures on Earth that can be otherwise than our own nature.

There is obviously alot more to my argument, but to be honest, I really can't be bothered constantly writing up large posts in my defense.
Sucumbio I disagree with your post too but as I said before I can't be bothered debating it, because all my arguments require long posts and I feel I'll just keep repeating myself.

It's not that I don't want to debate, it's just that I was expecting to write one long post detailing my argument, then have people understand me correctly and counter me, to which I could counter back with precise arguments, rather than have to rewrite my entire argument every time lol.

I'm not implying that you guys are stupid for not understanding my argument, I think the misunderstanding is probably just a result from us coming from different fields or perspectives. Most people here seem to argue strictly from scientific perspective, whereas I come from a philosophical one, which is perhaps what creates the problem.

I'm not sure I understand your argument. Perhaps it would help you to define your terms better?

When you said that human intellect was different than mere animal intelligence - that humans can deviate from what is natural, while other animals can't - what do you mean by this? What is intellect vs. intelligence? What is natural?

I'm not arguing with you, I want other PG'ers to do that. I'm just trying to help you make a more cohesive and convincing argument.

 

[Dre89]

I'm not sure I understand your argument. Perhaps it would help you to define your terms better?

When you said that human intellect was different than mere animal intelligence - that humans can deviate from what is natural, while other animals can't - what do you mean by this? What is intellect vs. intelligence? What is natural?

I'm not arguing with you, I want other PG'ers to do that. I'm just trying to help you make a more cohesive and convincing argument.

Intelligence is something all animals have, we just have it to a greater extent. When I say intelligence I mean problem-solving, capacity to invent and operate technology etc. This has no bearing on why I believe humans are superior. The same goes for physical traits, they have nothing to do with it, heck some animals have more advanced physical traits than we do anyway.

Why I think we're superior is that we have extra components to our essence that no other animal has at all. Animals can only do what is natural. They can never be 'evil' (without human intervention at least anyway). They do not have the capacity to ignore their ecosystem. They are like ants in a colony, they all function systematically to contribute to the greater end of nature.

Humans however are different. Aristotle said we can be 'otherwise' than our own nature. In other words, we can actually fail to be human, or fail to fulfill our purpose, through murder, ****,etc. We have the capacity to be better or worse than animals. When one is virtuous and wise, their behaviour is above that of animals, and they are fulfilling their purpose as a human. When one indulges in sensual pleasures, they are looked down upon, for they have lowered their standards to that of an animal. When one sadisically tortures children, they are considered the scum of the Earth, because at that point, they are so engrossed in evil that they have gone below animal.

Ecosystems are another example. Humans are the only creatures who don't really have a set ecosystem, and are the only creatures who do long-term harm to the environment. We are not governed by ecosystems. This is not a result of our practical intellgence, it would not require elevated intelligence to ignore ecosystems. It appears that humans aren't really apart of the 'ant colony' system that contributes to the greater end of nature. Whether this means nature is a means to our end, or it is our 'oyster', I am not sure.

Again I haven't really done the argument justice, but I hope you see my point. As I said before, we are part animal, part 'more'. If the core essence of animals is X, then we are XY, because we are part animal, but have more.

The superiority comes not from the fact we are different, but that we are everything they are but more.

 

[Sucumbio]

Sucumbio I disagree with your post too but as I said before I can't be bothered debating it, because all my arguments require long posts and I feel I'll just keep repeating myself.

Aw, c'mon. You give up too easily. One of the many strengths of a good debater is in their ability to reshape their ideas if its core essence is missed the first go around. Or even the second. How do you think laws get made? Why do you think it takes eons for even something simple like "Does the corner of Debate Street and Hall Street need a stop sign or a traffic light?" Its because the original argument, regardless of how well crafted, will be picked apart... dissected over and over again. From many people, all with unique perspectives.

When making an argument, something to do, like in chess, is to think on what the other party will fight back with. Gauge your arguments... prepare for them, prepare for all the angels that'll come at you. Be ready for the words that will turn your own against you... this proofing is invaluable, it'll make or break a debater. When I was a debate coach, the single worst thing to contend with was not having enough back-ups. Lincoln-Douglass format isn't quite the same as this... it's actually a LOT harder. In formal debate, you have time limits, you have a set number of rebuttals. You have judges. Here, you've got no excuses! Especially "well I'll just end up repeating myself." Do you know what you're saying when you say that? You're telling us that YOU are not convincing enough, because you cannot avoid repeating yourself. Unlike a spoken debate, we have the luxury of being able to scroll back to re-read your words. So no, you DON'T have to repeat yourself. If your point is important to you, and important to your stance, and your opposition isn't "getting it" then YOU have the responsibility to post again, more convincingly than before. Otherwise you're not debating. Your just opinionating, and throwing it on everyone else to take it or leave it.

 

[Dre89]

Aw, c'mon. You give up too easily. One of the many strengths of a good debater is in their ability to reshape their ideas if its core essence is missed the first go around. Or even the second. How do you think laws get made? Why do you think it takes eons for even something simple like "Does the corner of Debate Street and Hall Street need a stop sign or a traffic light?" Its because the original argument, regardless of how well crafted, will be picked apart... dissected over and over again. From many people, all with unique perspectives.

When making an argument, something to do, like in chess, is to think on what the other party will fight back with. Gauge your arguments... prepare for them, prepare for all the angels that'll come at you. Be ready for the words that will turn your own against you... this proofing is invaluable, it'll make or break a debater. When I was a debate coach, the single worst thing to contend with was not having enough back-ups. Lincoln-Douglass format isn't quite the same as this... it's actually a LOT harder. In formal debate, you have time limits, you have a set number of rebuttals. You have judges. Here, you've got no excuses! Especially "well I'll just end up repeating myself." Do you know what you're saying when you say that? You're telling us that YOU are not convincing enough, because you cannot avoid repeating yourself. Unlike a spoken debate, we have the luxury of being able to scroll back to re-read your words. So no, you DON'T have to repeat yourself. If your point is important to you, and important to your stance, and your opposition isn't "getting it" then YOU have the responsibility to post again, more convincingly than before. Otherwise you're not debating. Your just opinionating, and throwing it on everyone else to take it or leave it.

That's all well and good, but when you're participating in four different debates, all of them which have three people debating against you, which require long posts, it can get too much lol.

 

[Sucumbio]

haha I hear ya. I'll give you credit for taking up the tougher part on a lot of these topics. And you're right, most of the arguments against you will be purely scientific. No, they don't teach Scientism in school, but science will always be the preferred back-bone to argument -especially- on topics like evolution, space, time, etc. that and philosophy is for the most part total BS. it remains one of the few subjects I dropped out of, lol. Ew! "We can't prove we exist." If I had a gun, yo... BOOM, prove that didn't just hurt like a mofo *screaming* yeah that's what I thought, biach.

 

[Dre89]

haha I hear ya. I'll give you credit for taking up the tougher part on a lot of these topics. And you're right, most of the arguments against you will be purely scientific. No, they don't teach Scientism in school, but science will always be the preferred back-bone to argument -especially- on topics like evolution, space, time, etc. that and philosophy is for the most part total BS. it remains one of the few subjects I dropped out of, lol. Ew! "We can't prove we exist." If I had a gun, yo... BOOM, prove that didn't just hurt like a mofo *screaming* yeah that's what I thought, biach.

It's ironic that you say that philosophy is BS considering that philosophy created science lol.

Science is limited though. For example, there are premises in certain scientific theories which can be disproven by philosophical logic, such as the infinite regress of time.

Science also has pretty much no bearing on whether God exists or not, it can only tell us how the world functions, not why it does, just to name another example.

Anyway, let's not turn this into philosophy vs. science, they're meant to work together, not verse each other.

Philosophy vs. science is like the master vs. the student.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I think I understand your argument much better now, sorry.

Intelligence is something all animals have, we just have it to a greater extent. When I say intelligence I mean problem-solving, capacity to invent and operate technology etc. This has no bearing on why I believe humans are superior. The same goes for physical traits, they have nothing to do with it, heck some animals have more advanced physical traits than we do anyway.

Why I think we're superior is that we have extra components to our essence that no other animal has at all. Animals can only do what is natural. They can never be 'evil' (without human intervention at least anyway). They do not have the capacity to ignore their ecosystem. They are like ants in a colony, they all function systematically to contribute to the greater end of nature.

Animals can't be evil, they can only do what is natural, hmm. I'm not entirely sure of that, why? Because animals do things that we would consider evil; murder children, cannibalism, **** etc. Sure it's within their nature, but if it was within someones nature to kill everyone they saw, than wouldn't that still be evil, it'd just be in their nature to be evil? Also what do you mean by "natural" for an animal? And then how do you know that you're right?

Humans however are different. Aristotle said we can be 'otherwise' than our own nature. In other words, we can actually fail to be human, or fail to fulfill our purpose, through murder, ****,etc. We have the capacity to be better or worse than animals. When one is virtuous and wise, their behaviour is above that of animals, and they are fulfilling their purpose as a human. When one indulges in sensual pleasures, they are looked down upon, for they have lowered their standards to that of an animal. When one sadisically tortures children, they are considered the scum of the Earth, because at that point, they are so engrossed in evil that they have gone below animal.

What exactly is our nature? Again, how do you know all this is right? Also I think that humans doesn't really have a purpose either, we're just here. If anything our purpose is to have children, or at least benefit our genes enough.

Ecosystems are another example. Humans are the only creatures who don't really have a set ecosystem, and are the only creatures who do long-term harm to the environment. We are not governed by ecosystems. This is not a result of our practical intellgence, it would not require elevated intelligence to ignore ecosystems. It appears that humans aren't really apart of the 'ant colony' system that contributes to the greater end of nature. Whether this means nature is a means to our end, or it is our 'oyster', I am not sure.

What about cyanobacteria that started photosynthesis, it did some serious environmental harm? It destroyed a ridiculous portion of the life on earth at that stage. Life runs on death, it's a sad fact. Also, the reason I'd say we aren't part of the "ant colony" system, would be that our technology has advanced enough to allow us to step outside the system.

Again I haven't really done the argument justice, but I hope you see my point. As I said before, we are part animal, part 'more'. If the core essence of animals is X, then we are XY, because we are part animal, but have more.

The superiority comes not from the fact we are different, but that we are everything they are but more.

The problem I have with your argument is that most the claims are just claims. As far as I can see, the central problem I have is: "How do you know what you're saying is right?"

Or maybe this argument has just whizzed over the top of my head.

 

[Dre89]

Animals can't be evil, they can only do what is natural, hmm. I'm not entirely sure of that, why? Because animals do things that we would consider evil; murder children, cannibalism, **** etc. Sure it's within their nature, but if it was within someones nature to kill everyone they saw, than wouldn't that still be evil, it'd just be in their nature to be evil? Also what do you mean by "natural" for an animal? And then how do you know that you're right?

You're confusing evil with suffering. Let me put it this way, If I accidently drop a stone on your foot, you have suffered, but I am not evil, because it was an accident. If however, I did it purposely, then I would be evil, because I used my rational capacity to decide to inflict pain on you. In both scenarios, your suffering is the same, but I am only evil in one, because it is related to intention.

Similarily, consider a baby. A baby is largely self-centred; it only cares that its needs are met. This is ok for a baby, for they have not yet developed the rational capacity to exhibit more mature behaviour. However, if an adult were to act like a baby, he would be evil, obviously not in a black-hearted way, but in that he is failing to act like a mature human being.

This is where we get the concepts of natural and moral evil. Natural evil is when suffering is inflicted through natural means, such as animal predation, natural disasters etc. Moral evil is the evil I'm talking about. Moral evil can only be committed by those with rational capacities (ie. humans), who have the choice between what is natural and unnatural.

What exactly is our nature? Again, how do you know all this is right? Also I think that humans doesn't really have a purpose either, we're just here. If anything our purpose is to have children, or at least benefit our genes enough.

I would agree part of our purpose is to procreate. Why we actually exist I'm not sure (although I believe we were put here by a God, but that's irrelevant and doesn't really affect the theory). However, the idea is that all beings have a function to fulfill, a purpose so to speak. The difference between humans and animals is that humans can actually fail to do so, by murder, ****, or any wrong action.

Thomas Aquinas considered evil not the opposite of good, but the absence of it. What he means is that if one fails to be good, they are being evil, because goodness is absent. What specifically is good and bad is uncertain, but certain things are obvious such as generousity, wisdom, murder etc.

What about cyanobacteria that started photosynthesis, it did some serious environmental harm? It destroyed a ridiculous portion of the life on earth at that stage. Life runs on death, it's a sad fact. Also, the reason I'd say we aren't part of the "ant colony" system, would be that our technology has advanced enough to allow us to step outside the system.

Put it this way, if humans didn't exist, I'm pretty sure nature would function just fine. Also, with regards to technology, evolution wouldn't have allowed us to develop to the point where we disobey ecosystems and corrupt other ecosystems and nature in general.

The problem I have with your argument is that most the claims are just claims. As far as I can see, the central problem I have is: "How do you know what you're saying is right?"

You can say that about every argument though. Science is not going to tell you if humans are superior to animals or not, all science can do is point out the similarities and differences between them.

My claims are based on logic though. Nearly every claim I made can be verified by scientific analysis, that analysis will show that the animals don't have those extra traits I claim humans do. What is left to debate however, is whether those traits consitute difference and/or superiority.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

You're confusing evil with suffering. Let me put it this way, If I accidently drop a stone on your foot, you have suffered, but I am not evil, because it was an accident. If however, I did it purposely, then I would be evil, because I used my rational capacity to decide to inflict pain on you. In both scenarios, your suffering is the same, but I am only evil in one, because it is related to intention.

Am I? I thought that I wasn't. **** and murder within the animal kingdom are definitely deliberate.

Similarily, consider a baby. A baby is largely self-centred; it only cares that its needs are met. This is ok for a baby, for they have not yet developed the rational capacity to exhibit more mature behaviour. However, if an adult were to act like a baby, he would be evil, obviously not in a black-hearted way, but in that he is failing to act like a mature human being.

I was talking about being evil in a black-hearted way. Killing everything within sight is evil! Even if it's within your nature.

This is where we get the concepts of natural and moral evil. Natural evil is when suffering is inflicted through natural means, such as animal predation, natural disasters etc. Moral evil is the evil I'm talking about. Moral evil can only be committed by those with rational capacities (ie. humans), who have the choice between what is natural and unnatural.

How does you know that animals lack the rational capacity to choose between natural and unnatural? Some animals are quite clever, whales, dolphins, chimpanzees etc.

I would agree part of our purpose is to procreate. Why we actually exist I'm not sure (although I believe we were put here by a God, but that's irrelevant and doesn't really affect the theory). However, the idea is that all beings have a function to fulfill, a purpose so to speak. The difference between humans and animals is that humans can actually fail to do so, by murder, ****, or any wrong action.

Thomas Aquinas considered evil not the opposite of good, but the absence of it. What he means is that if one fails to be good, they are being evil, because goodness is absent. What specifically is good and bad is uncertain, but certain things are obvious such as generousity, wisdom, murder etc.

So, if our purpose is to reproduce (our only purpose as I see it- I'm a stone-cold atheist), then can't animals fail to do so? Also, I'd be interested to know how you know that we have a function to fulfill, that's higher than reproduction? If we don't really have a function to fulfil, then this whole argument is null and void.

Put it this way, if humans didn't exist, I'm pretty sure nature would function just fine. Also, with regards to technology, evolution wouldn't have allowed us to develop to the point where we disobey ecosystems and corrupt other ecosystems and nature in general.

Evolution would easily allow us to develop to the this point, why? Because having the ability to disobey an ecosystem is an advantage for those who poses that ability (at least in the short term). Also the traits necessary to disobey an ecosystem are advantageous; ingenuity, intelligence, etc. So these traits would evolve and eventually, you have the ability to disobey an ecosystem.

You can say that about every argument though. Science is not going to tell you if humans are superior to animals or not, all science can do is point out the similarities and differences between them.

No. I can't say "how do you know?" to an argument that is backed up by substantial evidence. I just can't. The problem is, that your argument seems to lack evidence.

My claims are based on logic though. Nearly every claim I made can be verified by scientific analysis, that analysis will show that the animals don't have those extra traits I claim humans do. What is left to debate however, is whether those traits consitute difference and/or superiority.

Where is that scientific analysis that proves that we can be otherwise to our nature, and animals can't?

 

[Sucumbio]

Why I think we're superior is that we have extra components to our essence that no other animal has at all.

1.) Animals can only do what is natural. They can never be 'evil' (without human intervention at least anyway).

2.)They do not have the capacity to ignore their ecosystem.

3.)They are like ants in a colony, they all function systematically to contribute to the greater end of nature.

I numbered your responses for sake of ease.

1.) Humans can only do what is natural as well. Evil isn't a non-natural state of being. Evil is firstly, relative to others (usually human), and secondly a product of our brains. -source

2.) Neither do humans. We can destroy our ecosystems, which implies we're ignoring it, but we can never -actually- ignore it.

3.) No, ants are like ants in an ant colony. All life forms belong to and participate in the symbiotic relationships of Nature, Humans included. We are simply more versatile than other creatures.

Humans however are different. Aristotle said we can be 'otherwise' than our own nature. In other words, we can actually fail to be human, or fail to fulfill our purpose, through murder, ****,etc. We have the capacity to be better or worse than animals.

That's because Aristotle did not have the understanding that we possess today. In point of fact, there are other animals that display "human" emotion and moral judgments. -source -source