Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Are humans superior to animals?
I'm sure this question will spark some controversy, and I'm sure that there is no absolute way of answering it.
I believe that humans do have some very special characteristics that set us apart from other animals.
some of them good, some of them not. It appears that we have more potential than any other creature can imagine. Potential to achieve both he absolute "good" and the absolute "bad." It appears that we have the greatest capacity for love and compassion as compared to other animal. We also have the greatest capacity for evil, malicious doings. From my estimation, it seems that we suffer more than any other creature. Just look at the chaotic society we have created. I believe that it is this potential that gives us a special place in this relative world we live in. It's as if we are the guardians, the keepers of the earth with so much power and thus great responsibility. So far, within our brief human existence, we have failed to live up to our godly potential. But I believe our best days are to come. I value all life with great significance, but I believe a human's life is, to a degree, intrinsically more valueable than an animal's life for these reasons. Having said that, I am only postulating from my limited, narrow human perspective and no conclusion could ever come from elsewhere.
I believe that humans do have some very special characteristics that set us apart from other animals.
some of them good, some of them not. It appears that we have more potential than any other creature can imagine. Potential to achieve both he absolute "good" and the absolute "bad." It appears that we have the greatest capacity for love and compassion as compared to other animal. We also have the greatest capacity for evil, malicious doings. From my estimation, it seems that we suffer more than any other creature. Just look at the chaotic society we have created. I believe that it is this potential that gives us a special place in this relative world we live in. It's as if we are the guardians, the keepers of the earth with so much power and thus great responsibility. So far, within our brief human existence, we have failed to live up to our godly potential. But I believe our best days are to come. I value all life with great significance, but I believe a human's life is, to a degree, intrinsically more valueable than an animal's life for these reasons. Having said that, I am only postulating from my limited, narrow human perspective and no conclusion could ever come from elsewhere.
0
Comments
From a buddhist point of view, to be reborn as an animal is more degrading than that of a human form firstly because a human form is perfect for cultivating the mind and reaching enlightenment, but also because a lot of animals are controlled by senses and urges in a stronger way than humans are, they are more ignorant in other words. However, I personally try not to treat animals and humans differently, apart from eating meat which is a big difference!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-17116882
I am completely sympathetic to this construct.
But I agree with @ThailandTom: in some aspects yes, we are, in others, frankly - don't you believe it.....
From an animal point of view - no.
How can one form of life have more intrinsic 'value' than another...? Perhaps when that life form decides it is so...
Which is essentially saying that the fact that we can do mathematics and they can not or we have the capacity for complex emotions, etc, is pretty much irrelevant with regards to how they should be treated. However, if one still acts causing no harm then I don't see any problem with thinking that humans are slightly superior. Only when that view justifies causing harm, does it become problematic, IMO.
They are also doing that with the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, etc.) with the "Great Ape Project" which was started by philosopher Peter Singer, who is considered to be one of the fathers of the animal defense and rights movement in the world.
“Monks, one possessed of three qualities is put into Purgatory according to his actions. What three? One is himself a taker of life, encourages another to do the same and approves thereof.
Monks, one possessed of three qualities is put into heaven according to his actions. What three? He himself abstains from taking life, encourages another to so abstain, and approves of such abstention.” Anguttara Nikaya 3.16
Some have stated that what matters is the state of your mind, not your diet. A vegetarian could have an impure mind and a meat eater could potentially have a pure mind, which is paramount in Buddhism. An argument that some meat eating Buddhist teachers make is that what really matters is the state of your
mind. They say that a mind that is pure while eating meat is better than a mind that is impure, but vegetarian. This argument takes aim at the importance of mind purification in the Buddha’s
teachings. But this argument fails for two big reasons. If we take the view that we can do whatever we want as long as our mind is pure, then we could never convict sociopathic killers.
Sociopaths commit crimes feel no remorse. They have a clear mind about their actions. They know they are violating societies laws and just do not care. They are care-free and go about their daily
routines with no remorse.
Thich Nhat Hanh , founder of the socially
engaged Buddhist “Order of Interbeing.” He has written at least one hundred books and has centers and monasteries around the world.
Ayya Khema , very famous German born nun who has written several Dhamma books and opened many centers and monasteries in Europe and Sri Lanka. She was one of the first western women to receive full ordination.
Bhante Henepola Gunaratana , author of the best selling book, Mindfulness in Plain English, and founder and abbot of Bhavana Society in West Virginia is a vegetarian and the monks and nuns
at his retreat center are also vegetarian.
S. N. Goenka , perhaps the most famous lay Buddhist, who led a successful business and family life along with the teaching of Dhamma . He has opened several Dhamma centers and is famous for his ten day retreats using the body
sensations, vipassana technique.
Bhante Shravasti Dhammika , author of several Dhamma books. In the first edition, written nearly 25 years ago he came out very strongly with the opinion that one does not need to be a vegetarian at all and vegetarian views are basically wrong. Since that time he has become a vegetarian and now he has come out with a fourth edition which states:
“Many people find that as they develop in the Dhamma that they have a natural tendency to move toward vegetarianism .”
The analogy to the North Star is very good as it says that it is true that vegetarianism is not the goal of practice, liberation is the goal; but it does provide a light and direction for reaching that goal.
Can you be a Buddhist and still eat meat? Yes, of course, everyone is at different places on the path. Can you reach full liberation without following the North Star (vegetarianism), well according to the Buddha's teachings one cannot intentionally violate any of the five precepts (first precept is to not kill, cause to kill, or incite another to kill) and be a stream entrant or higher. A stream entrant is just the first stage of enlightenment (followed by once-returner, non-returner, and fully liberated Arahant).
Dhammapada, 129-130
In the following verse, the Buddha describes the only thing that should be killed:
“What is the one thing, O Gotama, whose killing you approve? Having slain anger, one sleeps soundly; having slain anger, one does not sorrow; the killing of anger, with its poisoned root and honeyed tip: This is the killing the nobles ones praise, for having slain that, one does not sorrow.”
Samyutta Nikaya, chapter 2
"He should not kill a living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should he incite another to kill. Do not injure any being, either strong or weak, in the world.”
Dhammika Sutta, Sutta Nipata, Khuddaka Nikaya
Note that receiving alms food according to the 3 fold rule appears to allow for meat for those who are in the monastic Orders, but not for lay people who must make a request or order at the grocer, butcher, or restaurant.) (from Majjhima Nikaya, Anguttara Nikaya, book
of tens V.305)
Buddha or one of his chief disciples reports
about seeing ghostly type beings who are
suffering as a “skeleton” or a “piece of flesh” or
another woeful existence and being tormented
by crows and other animals. The Buddha reports
that these beings are suffering in these states
because of a past life as a butcher of cattle or
pigs or sheep (Samyutta Nikaya 19.1, Vinaya,
Suttavibhanga 3.105). Although they were doing
the actual killing, who would do the killing if
everyone were Buddhist? Since there can be no
slaughterhouses if everyone were Buddhist, at
the very least, vegetarianism can be seen as an
ideal to strive for.
In one (Pali Canon) discourse (Majjhima Nikaya
22, snake similie sutta), the Buddha gives 10
analogies to describe how bad attachment to
sense desires can be. He compares attachment
to sense desires with ten really bad things. This
includes things such as a skeleton, a burning
torch that is about to burn our hands, and a
poisonous snake. The final analogy the Buddha
makes to describe something very bad, is that of
a slaughterhouse. He used the description of a
slaughterhouse as one of the analogies to
describe something bad (Majjhima Nikaya 22).
As for the more spiritual aspect... who knows for sure?
That said though animals have feelings and can suffer as we do so we're the same as them in that regard. Because of this they should be treated with kindness and respect.
"but habits in animals are entirely a result of biological and environmental conditions."
so there are zero difference with human in animals from this point of view.
the ability to change habits is only used in response to other conditioned mechanism.
i'll stop eating junk food and work out to be fit and attractive so i can meet someone = instinctual drive to reproduce.
i'll stop eating junk food and work out to be healthy and live longer = instinctual drive to survive.
i think this is the part that makes us human, the ability to step aside the animal part of us. This is the spiritual growth.
the only difference between human and animals imo is this potential.
In the context you describe, yes the value of reason isn't different from an animal in the goals its applied to.
Dont think they can assess what animals think when they 'change' or 'adapt' or take on behaviours - not from what I remember anyway - there is suggestion of this type of behaviour in I suppose animals that are closer in brain mass to size to us.
I watched a documentary on horse whispering - research is being conducted into horse language - it is incredibly subtle - the suggestion was that there is alot more going on than we can understand as their world view is different - as their reality is different then their perception of reality is different - so for example, we may purposefully change a behaviour as we have an abstract concept of what that behaviour entails (so as above high fat food is not good from a survival perspective, I want to survive so I choose not to eat it - evolutionary desire + abstract thought = change in behaviour) - same for animals though it is assumed that they do not contemplate on death so for example for a horse it could be that food made my tummy ache, dont eat it and pass that information to other horses (evolutionary desire + abstract thought of self = change in behaviour)... as animals cant express themselves in a way that makes sense to us then its hard to assess - guess if we cant express ourselves to them then there is an issue as a higher consciousness should surely be able to understand a lesser one?
Have also seen a killer whale slip on a beach and take a mother seal and inadvertently knock a baby seal in the water where its floundering - the same whale then comes back and lifts the baby seal on its nose and places it on the beach before slipping back (bear in mind this move is dangerous and can beach a whale) - whats the thinking behind that?
reasoning doesn't seem to be unique to humans at all.
In the domain of cognitive neuroscience, metacognitive monitoring and control has been viewed as a function of the prefrontal cortex, which receives (monitors) sensory signals from other cortical regions and through feedback loops implements control...
When that ability is used for biological or evolutionary purposes there isn't much difference in motivation between an animal and human but the human rebirth is considered precious in Buddhism for the fact that our intelligence allows us to undertake a spirtual path of reflection and growth.
What I'm saying differentiates humans is the ability for self reflection to modify behavior or metacognition.
I'm open to my mind being changed here but these are the concepts that my mind needs to be changed about.
Dolphin know if pup knows something or not, then proceed to teach pup if he doesn't know... same with apes and other animals...
now self reflection might be where the difference lies but then again im not so sure.
if you exemplify self-reflection with a process similar to:
"if i change this behavior, then my chances are better at getting that lady to notice me"
this seem to be very common in both the animal world and the human world no?
I guess I would disagree. I see changes in animal behavior as a result of operant conditioning and not as a matter of intellectual reflection.
humans seems better at this but it certainly doesn't seem to be unique to us.
now if we narrow down the types of intellectual reflections things may become more interesting.
It seem unlikely to me to think that animals would be capable of engaging in philosophical intellectual reflections for example.
Metacognition I suppose is the otherside of the coin - humans certainly do it to a large extent - the study there is dated 2008 - I'm sure I read one last year about AI and mechanical pathways being hijacked by brain processes for abstract thought (i.e. that we think like this because our bodies are designed in a certain way - this links with some of the stuff I have seen @immersedone post on post-terrestrial evolution)... not sure where current theories are on this - certainly I have read stuff that ascribes more metacognition to certain animals (and the classes are very limited) - from my understanding this is linked to similar brain functions as in humans so I see your point that the animals that display this are akin to a type of brain function in humans... I think most of the comparative studies are derived from comparing human to animal brains in MRI function tests.
I guess if this were not true then some animal or other would have communicated with us on a more profound level by now (esp say the chimps who have been taught to sign - It would seem that their communication is very much driven towards their needs rather than to abstract thoughts of their condition).
With that in mind, suppose that answer to OP may be, yes - we are superior in a linear evolutionary sense...
My view isn't that humans are metacognition and animals are operant conditioning. Its not an either or dichotomy its a continuum. Humans learn much by operant conditioning and animals have some metacognition.
What I'm trying to say is maybe illustrated best by an example. I can run and jump but no where near as well as an olympic long jumper. I can jump say 5 feet an olympic jumper can jump 25 feet. Now suppose there was a large chasm of 15 feet that needed to be hurdled and failure meant death. In that kind of situation the results of our difference is massive. This is what I'm saying about the difference in amount being important. It may be that an animal has some ability to reason but not enough to engage in a spiritual path that can improve its lot.
It seems (from my very limited understanding) that Watson is preprogrammed with alot of information and can access that information very quickly - it is great at cross-matching - however that is not how our brain works (we dont check everything - we kind of have a fuzzy guesstimation thing going on) - also on the shorter questions there is not enough for a better cross-match - its also very much Q&A, it cannot think through a problem and improvise.
Guess in that sense, on a linear chart computers bottom then animals and then humans - at least if the test of superiority is whether other life forms match up to our style of intelligence then we win hands down everytime... does that make it superior (in thought) - well yes, I guess it does if there is a linear progression.
I think I'm with you there @person - that would however make us superior (from an evolutionary point of view) and the question is if we came from animals to where we are then where else can we go in the realm of intelligence alone - plus that would make us responsible for every form of life and destroying our planet at the very least should be utterly unacceptable (as the highest possible priority)...
OK - OP - yep we likely are superior solely from an evolutionary intelligence point of view - however that superiority translates to deep inferiority as we have failed to utilise it in a responsible manner...