Why animals are superior to humans (from a certain point of view)

In the vegetarian thread I remarked that I find animals superior to humans in most respects. It's an incendiary remark, and one not directly related to vegetarianism, so I thought I'd lay out my thoughts in a new thread and solicit your opinions.

(You can lock this if you feel it's appropriate, Kimball, but I think you'll find this a serious post meant to generate thoughtful discussion.)

Let me summarize my position succinctly:

Nearly every so-called 'evil' in life is a human creation. War, crime, oppression, prejudice, genocide, lying, etc.--all are committed only by humans, for obvious reasons. Animals (with the possible exception of the 'higher' apes) are incapable of doing any of these things.

Why is this? Obviously it has to do with intelligence. When it comes to high-level, abstract conceptualizing, homo sapiens are the best by a wide margin. In this one respect, then, humans are superior.

But with this intelligence come the capacity for doing all the awful things I mentioned above. It is impossible for the United States to go to war against France, for instance, unless one is able to understand the concepts of 'United States', 'France', and 'war', among many others.

Animals don't have this sort of intelligence, so they are incapable of doing the awful things that we are capable of doing. If we were to somehow to insert a human-like intelligence into a dog, it is reasonable to suppose that he would be just as capable of doing awful things.

So, when deciding which is superior, humans or non-human animals, we must first choose a criterion on which to base the decision. For example, to decide which was a better movie, Star Wars or Titanic, we must have some sort of criterion to base the decision upon, whether that criterion is 'box office totals' or 'artistic value' or any number of things.

In this case, then, if we use intelligence as our criterion, humans are clearly superior, as I already mentioned

If, however, we use another criterion, such as 'which species does the least amount of harm', then I think animals are superior by a wide margin. Animals kill for food, obviously, and they fight, and some may even kill for the fun of it on rare occasions, but none systematically exterminate members of their own species because they belong to a certain religious or ethnic group, to take one dramatic example.

In other words, how you answer this question depends on which criterion you use to answer it. And which criterion you choose will be based on other criteria, on down the line.

For me, intelligence is one of the last factors I find important when judging a creature's value. From a strictly ecological (and probably moral) point of view, the Earth would be a much better place if human 'intelligence' had never evolved.

What do you think?

 

With intelligence comes greater potential for both good and evil. It all depends on how you use it.

 

Animals only care about 3 things.

Sustainence
Sleep
Sex EDIT: Reproduction

and not necessarily in that order.

What else is there really?

The problem with men is that they were created to be more. They were created with a conscience. Some use it and some do not, and therein lies the problem.

 

darthOB1,

I would argue that animals are concerned with far more than just those three things. Companionship, for one thing, even happiness.

But I see your point. My opinion, I suppose, is that humans have mostly failed to live up to their conscience.

 

For me, intelligence is one of the last factors I find important when judging a creature's value. From a strictly ecological (and probably moral) point of view, the Earth would be a much better place if human 'intelligence' had never evolved.

By your logic a stone would be most moral of all. It does not act one way or another. It merely is.

When a lion kills a zebra, there is no morallity involved as there is no choice to be made and no reckoning of the actions.

Intelligence is the only factor when judging a creature's value. Without intelligence there is no moral or immoral. Unless you understand what it is that you do, how can you ascribe terms such as 'good' or 'evil'.

That we are even able to have this discussion is what sets our value above that of the dog or the insect or the rock.

 

I guess Sex should have been re-classified as reproduction.

Therefore you could catagoize the caring of individuals in a heard or companionship for example as a means of keeping the reproductive line healthy.

I reflected this change in post.

 

TragicLad,

I grant your points about ingelligence being necessary for any idea of morality to develop, but I strongly disagree with your view that:

"Intelligence is the only factor when judging a creature's value"

An obvious question springs to mind: what about those people with low IQs or mental retardation? Are they less valuable? By your logic, the answer would seem to be yes.

Surely there are many other ways to find value in a creature. My dog is happy to see absolutely everyone, no matter what their color, religion, class, level of education, etc. That makes him extremely valuable and noble, in my opinion.

Even if you argue that his friendliness is due to a lack of intelligence, which it probably is (in part), I don't think that diminishes it in any way. At my job I work with some of the most intelligence people on the planet, and I find some of them distinctly less valuable than people I've met who would be labeled 'slow' or 'cognitively underdeveloped'.

Intelligence, it seems to me, is only one factor among many. And, for me at least, it's a fairly unimportant factor.

[edit for grammar]

 

First off, it is generally not a good idea to re-start similiar threads when one was just locked minutes prior. If that's the case, ask before posting a variation.

This does have the points of discussion that were missing from the locked thread, but I'd be interested to know how much you plan of differentiating this from the issues being discussed in the Veg. thread?

 

Mr44,

I'll assume your post is directed to me. In the vegetarianism thread we are discussing whether or not it is right to eat animals. In this thread we are discussing whether animals are 'superior' to humans, and how one might go about justifying such a claim. These plainly seem to be different dicussions.

If your rules of procedure are this inflexible, however, or if I have stepped on any administrator's or manager's toes, then feel free to lock the thread.
I can take my thoughts elsewhere.

 

An obvious question springs to mind: what about those people with low IQs or mental retardation? Are they less valuable? By your logic, the answer would seem to be yes.

Okay - clarification before I go forward.
All people, regardless of impairment, disability or just plain stupidity should be granted a degree of respect and dignity. There rights and freedom should be no different than anyone elses and any chance to grant opportunities should be afforded. That being said, I launch into a rediculous hypothetical scenario.

You are on the Titanic with Albert Einstien and Bob the dimwitted but friendly janitor. There's enough room on the liferaft for only one person. Who do you take?

Me - I'd grab Al in a heartbeat.

Okay - even more ridiculous hypothetical scenario.
All out thermonuclear war is about to begin. You can bring one last person into the bunker. You can bring Carl, a brilliant doctor who is a bit of an arrogant jerk, or -once again- Bob the friendly but dimwitted janitor. Who do you pick?

Though he'll make lousy company, Carl's skills and expertise will be of far greater benefit to everyone in the bunker than Bob's friendly chitchat. Sorry Bob.

I know we don't like to make such judgements but some people ~are~ more important and better than others, and it is intelligence that is, imho, the measure that is above all others.

 

TragicLad,

You misrepresent the question at hand by framing it in such life-or-death scenarios. I'm not asking which creature should be saved from thermonuclear disaster. I'm asking which creature is superior.

Without launching in to my criterion disussion again, let me just say that, if we're judging superiority based on ability to understand physics or perform open-heart surgery, then humans obviously win. But if we're judging it based on general decency, then I think humans will lose every time.

 

Animals superior?

Some animals have physical attributes/abilities that are a marvel for man to observe. Consider the ostrich. This eight foot tall flightless bird can run 40 miles per hour, covering up to 15 feet with each stride! Or the albatross with a wingspan of some 11 feet, can soar for hours without flapping its wings. The hummingbird may flap its wings up to 80 times in a second. It can hover and even fly backward, while it's heart beats some 1,200 times per minute. Compared to the blue whale who's heart beats 9 times per minute and the heart is the size of a small car.

What do they all not have?

The ability to reason, and think like men. The intelligence cannot exceed that of man's.

So the animals can teach us humility by their awesomeness, but I wouldn't call them superior.

Calling a beast superior to man is as disgusting as calling man superior to God!

TragicLad:

I do feel however that all men are equal and while Einstien may be of more use than Bob the dim-witted janitor, Einstien is in no way superior or above Bob. If both men were perfect, there would be no issue. And one day they will be....

General Decency:

There are definitely men who behave "worse than animals"
A dog won't bite the hand that feeds it, yet children are disrespectful and disobedient to their parents.
Men are not decent, but they are superior. Animals don't really have the ability to be indecent.

 

Green Jedi,

As I mentioned in my original post, if we consider intelligence alone, humans are obviously superior to animals.

But aren't there other ways of determining superiority? You suggested that Einstein isn't necessarily superior to our dumb janitor just because he's smarter. Why can't we make the same case for animals?

(Keep in mind that not everyone shares the view of animals proposed in Genesis.)

 

My opinion, I suppose, is that humans have mostly failed to live up to their conscience.

Where do you derive this so-called "conscience"? Before, you mentioned that "it has to do with intelligence." There is not a scientifically proven "conscience" that resides in the brain. Are you saying that a "conscience" is a high amount of intelligence or different entity given to us by a higher power?

Without intelligence there is no moral or immoral.

True. In order for there to be morality there must be absolute truth, and in order for there to be absolute truth there must be guidelines established by some higher power.

Obviously, there is some kind of morality, since many humans feel compelled to "do what's right" or to not "do what's wrong." Humans, as well as some animals, have the intelligence to realize that there exist both a right and wrong in the world, and humans (as well as some animals) have the ability to choose between right and wrong before acting.

From a strictly ecological (and probably moral) point of view, the Earth would be a much better place if human 'intelligence' had never evolved.

Well, if there were no intelligence on Earth, then how could there be a morality? If you truly believe that possessing intelligence is immoral, then you must be against the existence of humans, animals, and plants, since even the simplest cell on Earth is chalk full of highly sophisticated information and design. Is life itself immoral?

Intelligence is the only factor when judging a creature's value.

There are many more factors than intelligence. What about skills, abilities, perseverance, etc? For example:

You may choose one person to accompany you on a mission to recover the victim of an avalanche. The choices are Albert Einstein (a man who possesses an extreme amount of innovative intelligence) and Whu Mhu (a native of the area who has incredible skill in locating and diggin out avalanche victims). Who do you choose? In this case, bare intelligence would not be useful in the least, whereas developed skill in one are would be.

 

But aren't there other ways of determining superiority? You suggested that Einstein isn't necessarily superior to our dumb janitor just because he's smarter. Why can't we make the same case for animals?

Because human not animals have found and made cures for things that make us sick.

We have learned to fix animals of they are hurt and so on.

Animals live by a rule the strong live and the weak die. That is not the case with humans, or it is not the case all the time with humans. With animals it's different.

Take a pet dog it has been feed and lived with humans all it's life. It would not last a very long time on it's own.

 

Because it goes against all practical wisdom to make such fallacious assertions!

EDIT: Please stop comparing humans to humans, it's not the point of this thread. And no, it's not a good comparison, illustration or whatever you're trying to do.

 

Why can't we make the same case for animals?

Does a herd of elephant care and send aid if a heard of wildebeast on the other side of Africa get wiped out by a tsunami?

Are you saying that a "conscience" is a high amount of intelligence or different entity given to us by a higher power?


I would say so.

That is what makes us different from the animals.

 

Take a pet dog it has been feed and lived with humans all it's life. It would not last a very long time on it's own.

I wish people would think before they say stuff like this.

I've heard hundreds of cases were a dogs and cats found its way home from thousands of miles away taking weeks and sometimes months, all the while living off the land.

I had a cat for 3 years, and one day became a ferrel cat that ravaged the neighborhood and still does. I see him every so often slinking around his old dwelling.

 

Ikrit

Are you saying that a "conscience" is a high amount of intelligence or different entity given to us by a higher power?

Not sure if this is directed to me, but I would simply say that 'conscience' is another word for the ethical guidelines that we all carry in our head. We get these guidelines from various sources (religions, our parents, ourselves, etc). Animals don't have these sorts of guidelines, because having them requires conceptual thought.

If you truly believe that possessing intelligence is immoral, then you must be against the existence of humans, animals...

I never said that. My point was simply that without humans there would be less suffering in the world.

Green Jedi,

I didn't understand either of your last two posts. Could you try again?

darthOB1

Does a herd of elephant care and send aid if a heard of wildebeast on the other side of Africa get wiped out by a tsunami?

This is a very good point, and illustrates one of the most redeeming characteristics of humans. Look, I should be clear about this: I don't think humans are evil. We're a species of animal, just like all the others. The difference is, we've caused much more destruction and suffering than any other species, and thus I think we are inferior in this respect.

It's actually not a very radical claim.

 

And with that I agree!

But, its origins are even simpler to understand and I'll leave it at that.

 

But if we're judging it based on general decency, then I think humans will lose every time.

But isn't general decency a product of morallity? And if you grant my premise that intelligence is necessary for morality to develop - then it comes down to just a few species of animals. I'll grant you that the chimp and the dolophin are currently less destructive to their respective ecologies, but I would say humans have a greater chance of survival than either because of our intelligence.

We are the only species able to recognize the danger of world-wide extinction -such as happened to the dinos- and are the only ones capable of averting it.

Given that - I will submit that we are superior.

Now all we need is the will to do so, or else it's me in the bunker with Bob the janitor stuck outside.

 

TragicLad,

Good points. And you're right: I was careless to talk of 'decency,' which, as you rightly pointed out, is a moral concept, and thus depends on intelligence.

My essential point, which I stated in my last point, is that animals have caused much less damage and suffering than have humans. The animals, obviously, have no conception of this, and it's not as though they've been consciously trying to protect our environment. But, no matter the reason (or lack thereof), they've done much less damage than we have, and in that respect I find them superior (and more 'decent', if you take my meaning).

Again, I'll repeat that we must choose a criterion to judge by if we're going to judge one group superior to the other. The most important criterion to me is harmlessness. To you it might be the capacity to recognize the danger of worldwide extinction. Different criteria will lead to different conclusions.

 

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this earlier. But actually many animals do (especially as you look at the increasingly intelligent ones) do display many of the "evils" of society.

For instance, chimpanzee's are reported to have what amounts to "war." Refer to, for instance "The Four-Year War of Gombe" that Jane Goodall documented.

Similarly, how can one hail animals as so noble and egalitarian, when for instance, pride/pack social structures are among the most heirarchical in existence?

 

But if we prevent a worldwide extinction, does that not tip the scales far greater towards the superiority of man?

True we may do harm, but if have the foresight to locate a large chunk of rock hurtling towards us, and take the action to divert it, doesn't preventing the death of 90%+ of all things on earth outweigh any previous harm we may have caused?

And as there is no other species capable of preventing such a horredous harm as a five kilometre wide rock smacking into the planet, doesn't that make us the superior species? What other species has the ability to save all life as we know it?

Granted this is assuming we have the foresight to look and the will to do something about it.
If we don't, then I change my vote to the dolophins.