MadMordigan

If humans were just superiour to animals, we wouldn't think anything of it. But since they are more superiour....hmmmmmmmmmmmm

abe smith

Who told you "humans are more superior {sic} than animals [sic]?" 1. we ARRR animals. 2. an amoeba, a horseshoe crab, a slimemold(a colony of slimemold) are PERFECT! doing what they do PERFECTLY. and for a damnsight more millennia than we've. Slope off; think sense.

Marduk

Not another stupid "oh boy, oh boy I'm smarter than my dog, whoopee! Give me my prize" type thread?
The jury is still out, the dinosaurs lasted over 100 million years, sharks and crocodiles are going near a billion, let's see how long the newbie homosapiens last.

John Galt, Jr.

I am a bit unclear as to what this thread is about, so if I have it wrong, let me know. It looks like the original poster, Corgan Sow, is taking issue with those who appeal to God's fiat (perhaps) to support a view of the superiority (in some sense) of humans over non-human inhabitants of this planet. CS seems to be suggesting that the superiority (in some sense)of humans over non-humans can be defended on other grounds, and then proceeds to offer some grounds.

These properties can establiss the superriority of humans over non-humans, according to CS's, if I read him/her properly. If this is the thrust of CS post, I have a couple of question about CS's claims; I won't address the claim about the possession/non-possession of a soul comparsion, at this point.

First question: In what sense of 'superiority' does the possession by humans of the abilities/characteristics/properties mentioned make humans superior to non-humans-- what sense, that is, apart from superiority along that particular dimension. In an obvious sense, someone with greater ability to produce tools will be superior in tool-producing. Similarly, someone who is superior in an ability to produce art will produce superior art (assuming the appropriate motivation). But CS isn't just making these trivial points, I assume. So, what is the superiority that these lesser superioritiesconfers?

Second question: Whatever this larger sense of superiority that CS has in mind, if I possess more of these lesser superiorities than you possess, am I thereby superior to you? Or if whites possess more of these superiorities (or more of some relevant sub-set of these lesser superiories) than blacks, are whites superior to blacks?

I am trying to get a clear(er) understanding of the claim that CS is making here.

John Galt, Jr.

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: John Galt, Jr. ]</p>

Nataraja

Humans are not superior to their animal friends, except in that they are a little more sophisticated in some ways. Humans are, more than anything else, a sentient pest.

GeoTheo

Yeah, and I'll be damned sure that dog was trained by a squirrel or a fish.

GeoTheo

Are most of your "friends" animals?
I have two dogs. Some times I wonder if they really like me or just submit to me because I am the "alpha". In a way I think dogs are kind of like parasites that survive by butt kissing. When I had a pet snapping turtle, at least I knew where I stood with him. Snapping turtles like to eat. period. They don't have friends. There is a certian elegance in their outlook.

Gar

nice subject.

"Humans are more superior than animals, therefore..."

I suppose we could also say...

"Humans are more superior than animals because of their gooder grammer than animals."

"Humans having superior grammer are superior than animals."

or

"Animals, being less superior than humans, have less superior grammer."

Yes, humans are truly more superior than animals.

Wyz_sub10

Everybody's ragging on CS's grammar and whether "man" or "other animals" really are superior, etc.

This all misses the point, I think.

I believe the point is whether superiority (or dominance, maybe we can better agree on that term...maybe not) is an indication of "favoured status" = divine creator.

*If* we are "superior", does that mean 1) there has to be a god, 2) we are god's favourite?

[spell check, spell check, spell check]

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Wyz_sub10 ]

[ October 23, 2002: Message edited by: Wyz_sub10 ]</p>

Yggdrasill

Homo Sapiens being superior to other animals is subjective, there is no right answer. You could say the superior animal is the animal that is the most prolific, you could say that that the superior animal is the animal that has the best hearing, or the best sense of smell, or is the best at eating stuff, etc.

As long as there isn't an objective standard to measure superiority up against, you can't say that a particular species is better than another species.

So, you would have to crate a system that is able to appreciate all the characteristics of all species and then apply it to the species in question, and then see which one emerges victorius.

Good Luck...

I would put my money on Homo Sapiens, but that may just be indicative of what species I am.