Do you believe that people are human animals or are people something else?

1. I believe that all matter in the universe is recycled, including spiritual energy. All is recycled or re-formed.

2. I believe there are too many humans on the planet, as well as domesticated dogs and cats.

3. I believe the Earth has been thrown out of balance and the physical matter of the universe is not in sync with the spiritual matter of the universe.

4. I believe certain people as well as animals are born as purely biological beings.

5. I believe humans are the same as animals in essence, and that we too should return to an existence that is in balance with Nature.

6. I believe humans may be out of balance with Nature because we may not have been meant to live on this planet, or that we may not actually have been meant to live at all.

7. I believe humans were created and placed on Earth independent of evolution. We may be part creature from Earth, part alien, as our DNA was tampered with.

Human beings to me are animals with souls just like eveything else on this planet. However I do believe that humans are alien hybrids meaning we are part animal and part something else. We just has too much extra in there. Evolution can't explain the almost over night growth of our brains from our most recent relative. Our DNA has so many other animals inside of it. Not only this but look at ur history our oldest religions which to correct people were actual are history at the time point to aliens or humanoid gods teaching us things we other wise could not know. Like were certain start are in the sky, galaxy's and even specifics like star movement. While noting that to see any of this we need the Hubble telescope. to me the evidence is so convincing. If we are not part something else then planet earth is not what it seems and neither is the human being.

Being an agnostic, I can say that "I don't know." I do believe in energy in the universe remains steady so whatever energies we have when we die it returns in some form - maybe just as electrical impulses...

Oh really what kind of agnostic?

Every living thing has a spirit, not just humans.

We're animals.

Hew-mans are a combination of both ,natural and spiritual,...two different components...it was not an apple tree they were told not to go near, we were not to marry into the earthly being,they were only natural....the beginning of all our conflict ,like trying to mix oil and water.

I believe that people are mammals just as all the other species of mammal are. So if those other species are classified as animals then the human mammal must be the same I'd suppose.

I don't put one animal over the rest, each has their purpose, strengths, and weaknesses.

People are human animals, but they are also sentient. I believe that sentience is something special.

Just another branch on the tree of life.

Human animals.

'People' are body-soul-spirit; animals are not.

every living thing on in the universe as a soul or none at all. Not all live forms are as evolved that's all

Why are people so special and animals not? I know some animals that seem smarter than a lot of the people I encouter throughout the day.

The intentional effort to dumb-down society. It is recently started to 'back-fire'.

like reading the fairy tales from the Abrahamic religions!

We are all the creation of the Great Spirit, The Creator, God or any of the other numerous names people want to use to refer to the divine progenerator of the universe and everything in it.

I think love and caring and the ability to sacrifice oneself for a loved one puts that particular being above and beyond others. You can call it a soul or whatever you want, but it would seem that in the Survival of the Species, emotion would be bred out and we would become as efficient as possible. Sharks, for instance, have no need to change as they are already almost perfect in what they do. Yet higher mammals will risk their lives to protect others, and sacrifice. We have all heard of dolphins protecting humans from sharks, or dogs protecting humans. I read of a dog that jumped in the water to save a drowning person it did not even know... evolution should have bred that out of it, yet didn't. I'm not sure if I believe in souls, in the traditional sense, but I think it is extremely egotistical to believe in them and not think that anyone but humans have them. Sure, an ant might be little more than a functioning and emotionless programmed cog in the wheel... but a dog or other higher mammal? There is clearly emotion there, even if not such a well developed brain. And emotion and love and caring speak of something more than just a functioning body.

lol good response

Human beings are highly evolved animals. We are the only animals with the capability to create things beyond simple nests or tools, and we are the only species with an understanding of morality. We are also the only species evolved enough to have developed a religion, and we are now on the brink of casting off religion in favor of reason and rationality.

Do you think the same moral rules apply to every rational being, or are they specific to our species?

That depends on what you mean by rational being. In my mind, humans are the only rational beings known to exist. However, I believe that if another rational being does/did exist, the same moral rules would apply to them. I consider moral rules to be both objective and real. They logically follow basic facts about the way the world is and the way the world needs to be to maximize the well-being of all sentient creatures.

"Rational" means the person is able to grasp the universal moral laws that apply to any possible action. Rational also means the person is able to think and act consistently.

In deontological ethical theory, any person who has the capability to understand moral laws is morally obligated to follow them. If we understand the rule, we should follow it. This means that an action only has moral worth when it is done in accordance with duty and for the sake of duty (to follow a rule). The consequences of an action are morally irrelevant (i.e., whether they make people happy or sad, healthy or ill). Since the moral worth of an action is determined by rules that are universal and never change, no situation can efface our moral responsibility and no situation can make the right action wrong or vice versa.

Utilitarian ethical theory maintains that the moral worth of an action is determined by the consequences. In particular, the more utility (happiness) an action produces, the more moral worth it has. Different species, cultures, and individuals gain happiness from different things at different times. Since the moral worth of an action can change depending on the situation (or the general makeup of the organism in question), most people consider this theory to be species specific, or applicable to "beings like us" only.

The two theories are not thought to be compatible. What do you think?

Overall I suppose I agree more with the utilitarian view of morality, in that I think morality is an expression of what benefits living creatures. However, I do not consider it to be entirely species-specific, in that our species affects the well-being of others and so morality must dictate how we act upon those other species. In other words, I would consider it immoral to kill an animal except in self-defense or for survival.
To me, the deontological theory seems more like a theory where God makes moral laws and we are obligated to follow them regardless of how they affect others. To me, this theory is flawed in that it allows for atrocities so long as they are commited within the context of the moral law. For example, in the Bible it says that humans have the right to kill and eat animals. However, in this modern era, knowing that we have alternatives available to us, I do not think it is moral to kill animals.
In truth, I do not subscribe to either of these theories, because in my view they are both incomplete but each holds some truth. In fact, this logically makes sense, because for humans to develop both of these theories of morality without one being completely immoral, at least part of each theory must be compatible with true morality.

Interesting...What if a species can only thrive when another suffers, as in the case of microbes and parasites? Or what if there are other intelligent species like that--let's say they can only survive if they harm or kill other intelligent species. My point is that if morals are intended to benefit living creatures, then they very well may have to justify harming living creatures as well.

I actually am inclined to agree with you: moral rules have been fabricated to benefit certain members of our species, that is, living creatures, but at the detriment to others. But such rules are just rules--they carry no normative obligation and as such are not morally "real." They are not objective (impartial) either, because they benefit only a select population.

In the case of a parasitic lifeform the matter becomes a bit more complex, but essentially at that point you have to examine two objective measures of benefit: the first is how capable a given species is of suffering both physically and psychologically. If humans have a more complex nervous system (which we do compared to microbes and known parasites) then humans must take priority in order to maximize the net benefit to the world. The second is population. If an alien race of parasites had the same capacity for suffering as we do, the only objective measure of moral good would be which of our species was larger, and therefore which would bring about the most suffering. You are correct in saying that morality can justify the harming of living creatures in such situations. This is actually one of the biggest ethical discussions that occur in classrooms. If you can save three lives by pushing one person in front of a car, should you? Given that all four people have the same ability to suffer, it logically follows that the three people's lives are more important than that of the single person. Obviously, this is hard to admit because most of us would be reluctant to actively cause the death of another human, and with good reason.

you are wise ayound your age

Well thank you very much :)

Humans are animals by definition. Period.

A rose is a plant, a Ferrari is a car and there is literally nothing you can argue to change these facts.

we are just human beings , people that can speak words and do work that animals can never do

I don't know if there is any such thing as a spirit, but if such a thing DOES exist, the arrogance to claim that humans have them, while animals do not; is astounding. For that matter, it could be reasonably argued that if ANY living thing has one, that EVERY living thing does. Why is it that some people feel the need to feel superior to the things (and all to often, the people) around them, usually without any tangiable evidence to prove such a claim?

I did not coose this option. I clicked "I believe that people are human animals". Stoo-pud Sodahead.

A great many people are insecure about what they believe. They cover their insecurity with displays of "superiority". People who are more personally secure generally don't feel the need to make such displays.

Yup.

Most of all we are the "Naked Ape" and if one were to be studied as such we would have far more in common with animals that our egos permit us.

Hairless Monkeys! haha

That is why the author of the book used that as the title.

"The Naked Ape" Desmond Morris

I believe that humans and animals have much in common and much that is different.

on the basic biological level, we are animals.
On the intelectual level, we're superior but only due to the luck of the draw with evolution, and mass extinctions.
I have no beleifs regarding the soul however, but if we have them and it is "us", then i believe all animals would have them.