Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Difference between man and animals
Importance of animals in our life
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Difference between man and animals
Are Animal Lives as Important as Human lives?
The question of whether or not the lives of animals are equivalent to lives of humans remains open. Facts show the many differences between human and animal life, and that very people would argue that the lives of animals aren’t valued. It’s known that humans may be more intelligent than animals and we may have more influence over the Earth however, that doesn’t determine importance. Therefore, human lives are not more important than animal lives.
Animals have their part in the environment and do make a contribution to Earth. ‘‘For still another class of human beings, the response to uneasiness is categorically different. It expresses itself in aggression: physical assault, theft, domination.
…show more content…
They have their own way of surviving that’s different than ours but that doesn’t make them any less important or less worthy of their place on Earth. ‘‘The belief of human cognitive superiority became entrenched in human philosophy and sciences. Even Aristotle, probably the most influential of all thinkers, argued that humans were superior to other animals due to our exclusive ability to reason.’’(Dr.Saniotis, Anthropologist and Medical Scientist). If you look at all the similarities between humans and animals, there aren’t that many. We need to sleep, breathe, reproduce, eat, drink, fight for the strongest, etc. The main difference is our mental ability and ability to reason. But, we must remember that if we didn’t have the ability to reason, we would be no more than a chimp. Imagine us without intelligence. We wouldn’t have complex communication and would be equivalent to an animal. Nesting, fighting, foraging, etc. We would probably be worse off than an animal because we don’t even always know how to survive in certain weather conditions because our bodies don’t adapt to it like some animals do. We would have no civilization. For, the Google definition of civilization is, ‘‘the stage of human social development and organization that is considered most advanced.’’ Therefore, we ultimately wouldn’t meet the requirements of being advanced or …show more content…
Animals have intelligence too, and we misjudge them because they ‘‘aren’t like us’’. As mentioned before, depending on where an animal comes from, they play a certain role in our environment. Animals would continue to do their part with or without humans existence. Herbivores would still eat and Carnivores would still kill to keep the population under control. Animals have to have the intelligence to hunt for their own food, and have actually been on Earth way longer than us. WE are the ones making the world such a bad place to live. We cause more damage than they ever have or could. We need to understand that animal’s were here first, and our ability to reason does not give us the right to treat them as unimportant, hunt them for sport, use their fur as clothing, cage them in zoos where they die because of mistreatment or starvation, or abuse them. We need to stop putting animals in this less important category because they are most definitely important. In fact, they were probably doing so much better before humans came along. Whatever religion you believe in, it’s agreed that animals were here long before humans. We have brought so much pollution and violence. They would go back to natural selection without our interference especially because they are naturally equipped with instincts of survival from birth. They’d live with much
The long-term aim is to develop an approach to ethics that will help resolve contemporary issues regarding animals and the environment. In their classical formulations and as recently revised by animal and environmental ethicists, mainstream Kantian, utilitarian, and virtue theories have failed adequately to include either animals or the environment, or both. The result has been theoretical fragmentation and intractability, which in turn have contributed, at the practical level, to both public and private indecision, disagreement, and conflict. Immensely important are the practical issues; for instance, at the public level: the biologically unacceptable and perhaps cataclysmic current rate of species extinctions, the development or preservation of the few remaining wilderness areas, the global limitations on the sustainable distribution of the current standard of living in the developed nations, and the nonsustainability and abusiveness of today's technologically intense crop and animal farming. For individuals in their private lives, the choices include, for example: what foods to eat, what clothing to wear, modes of transportation, labor-intensive work and housing, controlling reproduction, and the distribution of basic and luxury goods. What is needed is an ethical approach that will peacefully resolve these and other quandaries, either by producing consensus or by explaining the rational and moral basis for the continuing disagreement.
Every natural instinct of survival, for both animals and humans, is evil. According to the paradigm of our society, it is immoral to be selfish, to steal, to feel empathy only for your kin and apathy for everyone else, and to kill for personal gain. On the contrary, according to the natural instincts followed by all of the animal kingdom, you are to insure your own and your pack’s own survival, no matter the cost, disregarding all others; to steal, to feel apathy for other groups, and to kill for power and personal gain are all common practices that animals do in nature without the bat of an eye. These instincts do not only apply to lesser animals, but humans share them as well, for we are animals like all the others. There are no morals
Being able to think and reason should be a primary requirement for deserving dignity and respect. With no ability to think or reason how could an animal even understand that it is being treated differently than other animals. Fukuyama argues this point as well, “Human reason…is pervaded by emotions, and its functioning is in fact facilitated by the latter.” Clearly moral choice cannot exist with out reason but it can also be seen in other feelings such as pride, anger, and shame. Humans are conscious of their actions, in spite of acting on instinct as other animals do. Animals do not contemplate any deeper meaning of life or justify complex mathematical equations or even think about the question ‘why’; Humans, however, do think about those things. It is our conscious thought that sets us apart from any other animal in the world. Yes animals have perception and problem solving abilities, but unlike they are not able to understand complex knowledge based concepts, although they can solve problems within their normal parameters. Every animal on the planet should have the ability to solve problems but only to a certain extent, the extent of survival. When a situation becomes a matter of life or death animals must to be able to learn to live. Survival of the fittest has ultimately
In today’s day and age humans find themselves as being higher up in the hierarchy for decent reason. This leads to the issue of whether human beings are worth more than animals and animal suffering. While humans possess the moral capacity to understand moral thought, an issue rises with this. Does animal suffering, if we choose to assume that as moral agents human beings are obligated to include animal suffering in our choices such as Peter Singer speaks of in his essays on animal equality, become less important when used to progress science and perhaps human well-being? On the most basic thought processes most people would say yes because humans are more important than animals. Though looking deeper makes it harder to determine the morality
Throughout history, societies have been faced with many social issues affecting their citizens. Martin Luther King Jr, a civil rights leader for African Americans, was an advocate for the Civil Rights Movement, a movement that fought to undo the injustices African Americans endure by American society in the 1960s. Martin expressed his disgust with the social inequality among citizens when saying “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (PETA). Taking the prominent leader’s words into consideration, we should progress as a society by participating in the animal rights movement that strives to extend the same compassion, felt by Martin Luther King Jr, to all living things (PETA). Popular criticisms report that animals are inferior to humans because they are a source of food, but I will argue that they are victims of social injustice. Validity for my animal rights argument will come from individual and organizational expert accounts and by Bioethicist Peter Singer, Author Francis Fukuyama, New York Time’s Mark Bittman and also Animal Rights organizations, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and Animal Equality, to help prove my argument. Animals are silent victims who are loudly crying out for someone to stand up for their rights; rights that can no longer be disregarded by being overlooked. It is my belief that animals should be respected, and afforded ethical and human treatment by society instead of being looked at as a source of food. In a society where animals have no voice, it is everyone’s civic duty to participate in the animal rights movement and acknowledge animals as living beings, which...
In today’s day and age, meat is one of the most common portions of a human meal. According to the Census statistics from 2009 and 2010, United States is amongst the leading meat producing as well as meat consuming countries in the world, especially in beef and chicken.1 On the contrary, there is no census on human meat because no one consumes it. Yet, human meat and horsemeat are the same because it is meat from a body that has the capability of suffering as Singer proposed.
"The Case For Animal Rights" written by Tom Regan, promotes the equal treatment of humans and non-humans. I agree with Regan's view, as he suggests that humans and animals alike, share the experience of life, and thus share equal, inherent value.
The debate of whether animal rights are more important than human rights is one that people have argued mercilessly. Some people think all animals are equal. To understand this, humans must be considered animals. Humans are far more civilized than any animal, they have the power, along with understanding to control many types of sickness and disease. This understanding that humans have, keeps them at the top of the food chain.
The purpose of this paper is to answer the question: should non-human animals have rights? I firmly believe that non-human animals should be given rights, rights such as the right to freedom, the right to be treated with respect and care, and the right to not be exploited. Non-human animals are similar to humans in many ways and they should not be subjected to the unsanitary and crowded living conditions that factory farms and other forms of non-human animal mass production factories force them into.. They have families that they care for females bear their children just as humans do. Many human beings take think they have an inferior position over non-human animals and inflict extreme suffering upon them. I believe non-human animals should be given rights.
I will argue that it is a better option for humans to not accept the doctrine of Animal Rights, and I will offer three reasons to support this claim. Firstly, Animal Rights can be limiting to the advancement of human health. Secondly, there are alternatives to accepting the Animal Rights. Finally, Animal Rights does not support animal control, which is important for sustaining the ecosystem. The second point will be discussed as an extension of the first point.
It is not difficult to see that humans are humans and animals are animals. There are no relevant differences that justify differences in treatment. Animal rights opponents have consistently failed to support the differences in treatment of humans versus animals with relevant differences in capacities. Yes, an animal is an animal, but it can still suffer terribly from our brutality and lack of compassion.
It can be said that animal rights is somewhat Aristotelian in inspiration, where an animal has a telos, an end or purpose that the animal must carry out. The animal may have a number of desires and needs that could lead to the realization of its telos requirements. It would not be in mankind’s best interest to derail another being’s telos, as this leads to an extreme moral dilemma. The fact that animals are alive, can feel pain, and have their own interests should give animals a protected right to life. If a human should choose to take such life, they should be able to prove that their right to live is morally superior to that of any animal whose life they decide to take.
Initially the answer may seem simple. One might say when comparing animals to humans that they are cruder than humans; they live their life by instinct, they don't love, they don't strive to educate themselves and each other - their overriding goal is to survive and make it through the day. Yet, human history and the scientific evidence tracing our human linage back to some ape-like predecessor proves that humans (well, their ancestors) most likely lived that same existence - scavenging for food and looking for a safe and warm place to sleep - subsistence. Hence, it must be something else that separates us from the animals.
Animals and people are different, men are different from women, and kids are different from adults. Equality is not based off of identity, so why not give animals rights? Yes, they deserve equality, but that doesn’t mean that they should get the exact same treatment as humans. Equality means that you should take consideration of animals. Humans should only be treated in a different way when there is a straightforward connected difference between them. If everyone considered animals the same to humans then we would give them
Throughout the history of the world, there have been subjects of heated debates; there are a few facts that are undisputed. One of the undisputed facts is that animals existed and inhabited the planet before humans did and humans have been dependent on animals for thousands of years. Animals have played a very vital part in our history and one wonders whys should they be treated with much cruelty. While animals have been a great resource, a steady supply of food and clothing and even security, our treatment towards them has become nothing short of appalling. Since humans are dependent on animals for their well being, their comfort and at times their religion, there should be a moral obligation to treat animals.