Are Humans Animals

[Amill]

well an animals is a creature that is not a human or a plant or an insect.

i don't know if you whant me to go biological or not?

but i will tell you my perspective on this, but will have to explain what islam says about it. and i think you agreed to hear about the islamic veiw on this?

Try defining things by what they are, not what they are not. What makes an insect not an animal? What are the characteristics of animals?

This isn't any different than asking if humans are vertebrates. ex "Uhhh vertebrates are all the organisms that have backbones but can't make complex tools or contemplate the meaning in their existence!" So...humans aren't vertebrates.

 

[Sunstone]

Fleas only bite animals.
Fleas bite humans.
Therefore, humans are animals.

 

[Valjean]

well an animals is a creature that is not a human or a plant or an insect.

:biglaugh:

i don't know if you whant me to go biological or not?

:yes:

but i will tell you my perspective on this, but will have to explain what islam says about it. and i think you agreed to hear about the islamic veiw on this?[/quote]

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

well an animals is a creature that is not a human or a plant or an insect.

If THAT is YOUR definition of animals, then by MERE definition humans can't be animals.

There is no sense in that statement!
Its just as if one were to say Grass is blue and not green because grass is by definition what is not green but blue.

The term animal is defined however not by you but has been defined by biology for a long period of time and that definition has been accepted throughout the world.
We are animals.
We are biological eukaryotic organisms.

@Seyorni:

I think we're arguing at cross purposes, here. We're operating from different definitions of "animal."
Most of us are arguing from a biological definition. We're defining "animal" by anatomy and physiology; genetics, histology, evolution, &c. Eselam is arguing from a social definition.

If we were arguing from a social definition, then the term "animal" wouldn't exist since animals do not generally have the same social system

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I know this has been said before. But i think it bears repeating.

Humans come from the Animalia kingdom.

Now this is all categorised according to Taxonomic Rank

Taxonomic rank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As you may be aware the first rank is Domain.

Then the domain is split into kingdom.

Then phylum

And so on.

Now as you go further down the ranking systems you get more diversity. As you go up the ranking you get less.

Now i understand that it is your belief that that allah made us separate from animals and that we are special. This is of course your belief and you are more than entitled to it. However the taxonomic ranking system is accepted all around the world by everyone. Unless you can find a group that doesnt believe in it (please post a link or something)

So from a biological/scientific view point we are animals. We may be special animals but we are still animals. We share this earth with all the other animals and in my opinion this makes us no more special than they are.

And when all the other animals on this planet cease to exist for whatever reason so will we because we are not above the laws of nature.

 

[Valjean]

@Seyorni:

If we were arguing from a social definition, then the term "animal" wouldn't exist since animals do not generally have the same social system

I'm not following.
I'm saying eselam's a hominid exceptionalist. He's put "animal" and "human" into different social, moral, or value categories based not on physiology but on, well, his own social criteria.
Just 'cause he calls one of his inferior categories by a term shared by biologists doesn't mean he's using it in a biological (physiological) sense.

 

[tumbleweed41]

look we are not animals. what part of humans not being animals don't you guys understand?

No, the question is, 'What do you not understand?'

Biologically, humans are animals. There is no logical way you can dispute this.
Now you may argue from your personal religious standpoint. But this will not change the fact that species Homo Sapiens are of the kingdom Animalia.

 

[tumbleweed41]

i don't know if you whant me to go biological or not?

I dare you.

 

[MSizer]

OK, let's consider the plausibility here between the two scenarios. On the one hand we have the obvious biological similarites as well as DNA proof of relation, and on the other, we have a book written 1400 years ago who claimed to fly from Mecca to Jerusalem on a winged horse. Hmmm, I'm gonnna go with the DNA.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Are humans animals? We're a bunch of self-important monkeys. Our sophistication does not give us special distinction. We are classified under the Kingdom Animalia, thus we are animals because we meet the requirements for that kingdom. To think otherwise is arrogant.

However, I do realize where what I say can be misconstrued. No doubt someone will interpret that as humans of having no more - or even less value - than animals. No, that is not what I'm saying. I still value humans over, say, baby kittens because humans are more useful to me than baby kittens. So when faced with the option of killing a 6 year old girl or Mitten the Kitten, bye-bye Mittens. A human is more useful to me because another human ensures my species will continue to thrive.

And no, I don't want to get into a discussion on human-animal altruism or even human-human or animal-animal altruism, for that matter.

 

[Madhuri]

A human is more useful to me because another human ensures my species will continue to thrive.

What if that human cannot have children?
At least Mittens can reproduce. Do you still choose human? What is the new reason?

 

[Vile Atheist]

What if that human cannot have children?
At least Mittens can reproduce. Do you still choose human? What is the new reason?

A sterile human is still useful because that human provides goods and services I can exchange for, benefitting us both.

Mittens reproducing does not help humans survive. Unless kitten becomes the new chicken.

It still stays at human.

 

[Madhuri]

A sterile human is still useful because that human provides goods and services I can exchange for, benefitting us both.

Mittens reproducing does not help humans survive. Unless kitten becomes the new chicken.

It still stays at human.

So your moral stand point rests at how things relate to your self, what benefits you etc. Do the feelings or consequences to others play any role?

What if the sterile human is disabled or a hermit in the woods, minding his own business and having no influence on the world of consumerism?

 

[tumbleweed41]

So your moral stand point rests at how things relate to your self, what benefits you etc. Do the feelings or consequences to others play any role?

I would say he is using Species Survival. A trait that helps all species survive.

 

[Madhuri]

I see.
I also see that I am changing the subject of this thread and will cease to do so.

 

[Vile Atheist]

So your moral stand point rests at how things relate to your self, what benefits you etc. Do the feelings or consequences to others play any role?

What if the sterile human is disabled or a hermit in the woods, minding his own business and having no influence on the world of consumerism?

Yes. Others are part of my species. Their survival helps ensure my survival.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I dare you.

Come now, is there really a call for sarcasm?

ROFL

-Q

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

I'm not following.
I'm saying eselam's a hominid exceptionalist. He's put "animal" and "human" into different social, moral, or value categories based not on physiology but on, well, his own social criteria.

I have understood what you said.
I tried to argue that if someone does that then he would have to abandon the term "animal" altogether because the "sociality" of animals itself is not a homogen thing.
For example the social bevaviour and or "intellect" of lets say whales differs much from that of flies.
To call both animals while calling us humans would require a definition of human that is so fine grained that it resembles the grainedness of definitions that make us differ between wales and flies. If so then we shouldnt differ between animals and humans but rather between humans and whales and flies (meaning on that level).
The term animal is on a far more abstract level than the terms "human" and "whale".
(sorry i found it a bit hard to argue that in english)

 

[Vile Atheist]

I have understood what you said.
I tried to argue that if someone does that then he would have to abandon the term "animal" altogether because the "sociality" of animals itself is not a homogen thing.
For example the social bevaviour and or "intellect" of lets say wales differs much from that of flies.
To call both animals while calling us humans would require a definition of human that is so fine grained that it resembles the grainedness of definitions that make us differ between wales and flies. If so then we shouldnt differ between animals and humans but rather between humans and wales and flies (meaning on that level).
The term animal is on a far more abstract level than the terms "human" and "wale".
(sorry i found it a bit hard to argue that in english)

Both you and Seyorni make good points.

We define "animal" in terms of physiology, but people seek to make a distinction based on social criteria which doesn't really make sense. We're still "animals", but we may have more sophisticated language and technology, etc. Those factors don't separate us from animals because certain animals display - for example - high intelligence or social sophistication or the ability to produce technology (like certain apes making stone tools for hunting and fishing).

 

[Rayne]

I certainly howl at the moon every now and then.