Understanding the Capacity for Reasoning in Humans and Animals

47). The supposedly medical nature of these studies, with the corresponding chance for advancing the health of the human species, is overcome by the fact that “animal models have questionable accuracy” (Singer, Animal Liberation, p. 58). A particularly chilling take-away from the studies Singer lists is that most of them end with a note along the lines of ‘further experimentation necessary’, implying that the researchers are involved in a self-fulfilling negative cycle where their personal pursuit for grant money, publication in peer reviewed journals, and the elusive accolades of their colleagues far overshadows the immense amount of suffering their studies are causing. Indeed, Singer presents his argument in a convincing format, with one account surpassing the next in its sheer lack of consideration for animals as living creatures. This reinforces his argument that humans are speciesists, prone to causing harm to non-humans without a thought if it means a slight (perceived) enhancement in their own state.

Many things do have feelings when you think they don't have feelings. Many things are not exactly what it seems. Animals have many similarities and differences to humans. Starting with the story the pod.

Our bodies are not perfect and they do have their flaws that result into many different diseases, as Twain(1896) wrote, "...man starts in as a child and lives on diseases till the end, as a regular diet."(pg.240) However, it is man who also works and creates cures for these diseases. Although there is seemed to be more types of diseases common to man than animals, diseases and sicknesses are not uncommon to them. It is also humans that study animals and work as veterinarians to cure

Here we see Darwin acknowledge our biological relationship to animals that cannot be argued. However, he also extends the relationship between intellectually inferior animals and humans to our behavior. As mentioned in the above quote, natural animal instincts such as the will for individual survival and the protection of children can be found in all animals, including humans. Darwin also acknowledges that humans can sometimes revert to purely animalistic behavior. However

Self-consciousness and morality set us in judgement and make us feel guilty, like Scruton says. Animals do not tell humans about their self-consciousness do

Since we cannot communicate in an effective way to these animals, some people find it hard to believe that animals really do experience subjectivity. However, it seems that every person can understand that animals such as dogs, cats, and primates seek pleasure and avoid pain. These two ideas are contradictions of each other because if an animal seeks to enhance its subjective experience, it must follow that they do have a similar subjective experience as humans. Not surprisingly, just like the mentally retarded children that were previously mentioned, even if these animals cannot solve complex math problems, read or write, or compose music that these animals are still subjects of life. It follows that if these animals are subjects of life that they should also fall into the domain of equality of

emotions in a ‘man-made’ species is not far off in a non-organic life-form, but the question with

Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this

One of the most controversial topics in modern philosophy revolves around the idea of non-human animals being considered human people. Controversy over what makes up an actual person has been long debated. However, society deems it as a set of characteristics. The average person normally does not realize how complicated a question this is, and in fact many scientists, philosophers, and individuals will side differently on this specific topic. I personally do not believe that animals are capable of being human people, but throughout this argumentative paper I will address critical views presented from multiple philosophers on why this seems to be the case.

Do animals feel joy, love, fear, anguish or despair? What ere emotions, and perhaps more importantly, how do scientists prove animals are capable of emotion? Sea lion mothers have often been seen wailing painfully and squealing eerily as they watch their babies being eaten by killer whales. Buffaloes have also been observed sliding playfully across ice, excitedly screaming “Gwaaa.” Emotions are defined broadly as psychological phenomena that help in behavioral management and control. This is a challenging question to researchers who are trying to determine the answer to this question. Through current research by close observation combined with neurobiological research, evidence that animals exhibit fear, joy

This debate is still inconclusive. No one seems to have a distinct answer, but there is, substantial evidence to prove that animals do have emotions, like humans. The debate that surrounds the emotions of animals comes from two main problems: anthropomorphism and the difficulty of examining emotions in nonhumans (Toothman).

Animals and humans are very much alike. Infact, this is one of the reasons we test on them, because our bodies are very similar. Animals and humans share emotions, including sadness, happiness, and fear. As much alike as we are, there are things that set us apart. One being that they are treated much more poorly than humans. Just because they don’t have rights, doesn’t mean it is acceptable to test on them . “The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but "Can they suffer?” Jeremy Bentham states, perhaps with an opinion that animals can feel the same emotions as humans. I agree with this statement, knowing that animals also have a heart.The simple fact they cannot talk should not determine their fate. Imagine the roles reversed. You are the animals, and they are human.You don’t have a say in what you can and can’t do. In addition, you are

Jeremy Bentham, an English philosopher, once said, “The question is not, can they reason, nor, can they talk. But, can they suffer?” I want you all to take a moment to think about this quote. I do not know the answer, but I do know when I look into the eyes of animal, I do not see an animal. I see a living being, a friend, a soul. In research and testing,

While I do not entirely agree with Olsen’s perspective on the Biological Approach, I do believe in his ideology of human animals and human persons being the same thing as opposed to two categorically different entities. Olsen’s argument for the Biological Approach falls flat in response to the Psychological Approach solely because it does not solve any of the problems and, rather, pushes them back while evading unanswered questions—something Olsen criticized proponents of the Psychological Approach for. However, it does support his claim that human animals and human persons are the same much better than the psychological approach does. His reasoning that an animal must die the moment they gain psychological capability or that two beings, one

From a biological standpoint, humans and animals are virtually the same in terms of what they are physically composed of, that being carbon-based cells. However, in terms of behavior, humans and animals have distinct differences regarding how they act naturally and interact with others of the same or differing species, but there are similarities in how humans and animals act. Writers can use this observation to draw distinct borderlines between normal human and animal behavior or to intentionally smudge those borderlines and compare how similar humans and animals actually are.