Humans Are The Lowest Animals

Hunting throughout the United States has adapted to fit the needs of the people and new technology. Some might argue that hunting has become unethical and that animals need to be protected, but no one fights for animal protection more than hunters. Hunters, while using new technology, are making unethical decisions that affect the way other people hunt; these changes should be regulated so hunters are not making unethical decisions, effectively better conservation of animals. Hunting has grown in ways many people never would have thought possible. According to Aldo Leopold, a well known hunter, “Ethical behavior is doing the right thing when no one else is

Peter Singer is one philosopher who attempts to answer this question. Singer being an advocate of animal equality argues that humans and animals are morally equal. He believes the unjust treatment of animals is derived from speciesism; describes the widespread discrimination

In his essay, “The Lowest Animal”, Mark Twain attempts to prove a pessimistic opinion of his. He compares humans to animals, and explains how contrary to widespread belief, humans are a lower animal to other species. While he makes some valid points about greed, selfishness, and violence, he misses the overall picture of human nature. I firmly believe that the human race is made of not only civilized, but caring human beings. If humans were as abominable as Twain attempts to make us out to be, we would not have countries, communities, or any other caring and loving, individual connections. We would also have countless amounts of prisons, prisoners, high mortality rates due to violence, and lower life-spans. Twain writes from a subjective point of view, allowing his opinions of

In Mark Twain’s essay, “The Damned Human Race”, Twain contrasts the different features between animals and human beings using the appeal to pathos and logos approach. He uses the appeal to pathos as the dominant appeal to connect with the audience and persuading them to feel and the see things the way he does. He uses the logos approach to support his conclusion. All of his comparisons have some truth behind them, making the reasoning behind his arguments successful. And although he uses false authority and hasty generalization, the argument was successful.

By comparing man to roosters, what specific flaws in human behavior is Twain highlighting? (Focus on how we are different from

Mark Twain, in his essay¨, The lowest Animal¨,(1896), Mark Twain argues that human beings are not on the same ¨level with other animals¨.He claims that humans are the most lowest animals in the world. He announced that humans are the most idiotic creatures and that humans starts wars for no reason. Mark Twain suggest the problem for humans, that they are reveal as the lowest animal. Mark Twain explain the humans for being shelfless, cold hearted and less intellligent then the rest of the animals.To his audience Mark Twain revealed the humans problems not being reasonable with mankind. Fur the audience to know humans weakness to mankind.

The statement that can best be made about the purpose of The Lowest Animal by Mark Twain is that he believes that mankind is immoral, vulgar, wasteful, vengeful, discriminatory; cruel, greed, and obscene. This is because he has a moral sense and conscience despite this, doesn’t make our decisions right and properly. However, contrast with Mark Twain’s thesis; I think human beings are not that all bad and not the lowest animal, but perhaps not the highest animal either.

With this said I put this question to you. What gives us the right, as animals, to brutally abuse and kill other animals in the name of science and the selfish preservation of our own species? Especially when there are alternative methods available to us that don’t require the death of innocent animals.

Through the usage of various satirical devices Mark Twain develops an essay that explains why Man is below all other species, along with Man’s greatest weaknesses. I personally found Mark Twain’s essay “On the Damned Human Race” a dark piece of a satire, however it was carefully orchestrated to display the cruelty, and yet I struggled to fully accept that Man is completely unreasonable.

Since the beginning of time mankind has walked this earth and we have always strived for more and more things. This statement correlates to Mark Twain's essay ‘The Lowest Animal’ where he describes man as a cruel, greedy, and materialistic race. Although some people believe mankind it at the highest animal or at the top of the food chain the reality is that Twain is absolutely correct in saying that the human race is full of greedy and cruel people. Mankind, by nature is a greedy and stingy race that no matter how much they have, they always want more. For example, in The Lowest Animal, Mark Twain explains in one of his experiments, he accumulated “vast stores of food,” for many different animals but, they only took what they needed for

Humans do not eat other human beings because that would break down our organized society. We stay together, just as other species would, and breed. Morals and ethics are ideas that humans created cognitively. If one considered all animals to be just animals regardless of their intelligence, then the concept of morals and ethics would not exist. Despite the absurdity of meat eating ethics, there are other important reasons for meat in our diet.

We eat meat, we use woollen clothes. Sometimes we buy pets, such as-cat, puppy, bird etc. as our hobby. Zoo was our favourite place when we were child. We pass our time watching various types of animals in National Geography channel. After all these, we never give our attention to what impact they have for our activities. There is always a question about ‘’animal rights’’. Though both human and animal are the creation of God, human being never faces that much argument about having rights but animal does. After studying on this topic, I understood that Most of the argument goes against having animal rights. There are less right preserved for non-human being in environmental ethics.

Why is it that we as a society condemn the actions of a man against a man but very rarely a man against an animal? I think this question must be understood if we are ever to change the rights animals have. As of yet I don't believe animals have any actual rights. Rather humans have rights that involve animals. If we are to truly allow animals to have rights the same or similar to humans then we must first define what it is that makes us feel as if they are entitled to rights.

This is ironic because we are moral beings and can think about our actions, yet we kill and mistreat animals as they are lesser beings and can’t think about their actions. However, before we can answer the question of whether or not animals have the right to kill each other, we must ask whether or not they even have rights. It can be argued that, as greater beings, we should take responsibility for the wellbeing of those species that are less developed than us, rather than using our power to manipulate and exploit them. According to Rawls’s contractualism, animals are not rational agents and humans are. This implies that, as humans are the ones who have created the concept of rights, they should only apply to humans.

Contrary to Narveson, I do not believe that animals should be denied of moral consideration because of their limited ability to harm humans. First of all, this statement is false animals clearly have the ability to attack if so desired not by the human, but by the decision of the animal. In our sculpted urban environments animals are exiled and in relatively minimal human contact. Such predacious animals, that have historically attacked humans, have been kept out of our society by enormous architectural fences. These animals that attack usually need vast open spaces to hunt game, these environments hardly exist any more, and these animals are rarely in contact with humans. These urban areas do not attract animals with the capacity to attack humans but that is not to say that these animals do not have the ability to harm us, we have just manipulated our environment so that they are on the outside. One thousand years ago, humans would have been more likely to have been attacked by an animal. Our modern buildings and infrastructure isolate us from these creatures and has also reduced their population making it less dangerous for a human to worry about being struck by a beast on their way to work.