Considering the Inferiority/Superiority of Non-Humans

Post Reply New Topic

^^Greetings everyone.

I am very sorry to bother you all. However, I hope this alright that I explain some of my beliefs concerning animal welfare and the imaginary path I have taken to arrive at my beliefs.


Now, I have great difficulty in starting often with this topic, so, let us for the moment consider quite a simple question and point of view. Are humans more deserving of respect and compassion that those who not human?

Personally, I feel that the majority of humans would answer yes to this question.

Let us first consider the question a little more closely. What do we mean by "respect" and "compassion"?

These are indeed very broad terms. I shall try to explain my view now.

I personally feel that those who are non-human are indeed deserving of equal respect to those who are human (and vice-versa). I love the term "respect" in this case precisely because the term is rather broad, yet explains precisely what I wish.

The reason for this, I believe, is that if I say that I feel non-humans are equally deserved of rights (say), then an individual could state "That is silly. A cow could not use the right to vote".

I must say that I agree with this statement, as happy cows cannot vote. Yet it does not mean that they are not deserved of the right to life or peace.

I love the term "respect" as I feel the term carries an essence of individuality. I can respect two individuals equally, but for completely different reasons. It is this individuality of beings that I feel must be considered to properly understand our question.


Now, why favour a human completely over a non-human?

Often an argument is that they are more complex emotionally, intellectually etc. Let us suppose this is true. (Though I feel these terms carry bias with them). I feel that all this means is that if we have a human and a non-human, then any we must consider any action that we carry out towards them as separate cases.

Let us consider an example. Suppose we have a human and a cat. For some reason we must kill the human and cat. But, of course I believe that both this human and kitty can feel pain, and I wish not to inflict pain on either of them. Now, the considerations that we must make towards the direct killing weapon would be similar for each individual. For instance, a sword or a gun or a lethal injection would likely have similar painful effects on both.

So, for this experiment, suppose we a means of killing that cause no pain, but we must make physical contact with them.

I feel that this is where the experiment becomes interesting and where must take different precautions. Suppose there were two individuals carrying out the killing. We could not discuss how we would carry out the killing in front of the human (we assume he speaks our language - and is male) because we would then know his is in danger as he would feel fear and suffer. But then, we could do this is front of the kitty, because he cannot understand us.

On the other hand, if they cat and human were roaming free and we wished to make physical contact via stealth, then I feel the kitty would have the advantage due to his refined senses.

I think the main fact here is that I believe that the pain they feel from fear is most probably very similar. They both suffer from fear. They both suffer from pain. Their other abilities do not really change the fact that they are beings who think and feel, but think in different ways.

I do hope this is alrighty that I stop here for the moment as my brain feels rather squishy. ^^ I do hope you enjoyed this and would be very grateful for any comments or challenges. I am very sorry if I am incorrect or silly above.

All living things are made of food. That's the way nature works and it creates problems.

most honorable pixie of the wondering through the british isles of land masses: we as one whole but are separate to others would like to add if permitted.......the non-humans among us simply do what they do......the humans who move in various ways through space and time in this realm are the forms who can think about what they do.....and do evil just the same.

ergo, twod seem that inferior term is property of those who type.

most sorry TOMASU.....trying to be cute and write like you do...another in a long list of failures.

humans-----inferior

non-humans----superior

Do I think animals are equal to humans? Usually not.

I have no objection to eating cows or fish or even whales.

But if there was a game reserve in Africa where the last 100 tigers or elephants lived then I would happily shoot anyone who tried to poach them. Under those circumstances then the life of a tiger would be worth more than the life of a human.

Anyone interested in this subject might wish to read 'Animal Liberation' by Peter Singer, wonderful work, well worth the reading if you have an interest in Ethics.

peace j

I agree with the OP. LOL at humans thinking they're superior to all other animals.

You know who else thinks they own other animals? Cats. They think they own us when we take them in a pets. Just the same as we think we own them.

Indeed, it seems that it's in the nature of many animals to assume this illusion of superiority.

However, the vital thing to note is that it's just that - an illusion. We give ourselves the illusion of ownership, the illusion of dominance, and the illusion of superiority in our own minds. And that's the only place our stupid illusions have any relevance at all - in our own minds, whether we're humans or cats.

After all, a cat couldn't care less what some idiotic jumped up apes think of it, just as long as they're with apes which are nice to it and which give it food. Just like how the apes themselves couldn't care less about other apes unless they get something from them.

^^Yaye thank you for your replies everyone.