Thursday, May 23, 2013
The Boundaries Between "US" and "THEM"
In class today, we discussed the nature of the boundaries we and society envisions between humans and animals. We asked several questions: 1) Was the division as a social construct or was it human nature? 2) Should we make moral distinctions based on an ability to reason (rationality) or on an ability to suffer and feel pain? 3) Why have we each personally changed our views of our relationship between ourselves and animals? Please offer a thoughtful meditation of at least 10 sentences in responding to at least two of these questions. You can respond to all three if you like.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So I answered #1 and then I realized it also answers #3 so this is my response to both of them combined.a
ReplyDelete1) and 3) I think that the division is a social construct that has formed over time. Many cultures throughout history have treated animals with extreme respect, for example Native Americans. Most if not all Native American tribes saw themselves as equals with animals and often put nature above them in importance. Our society today relies heavily on man-made wonders that sometimes it makes appreciating or even acknowledging the animals around us take the bake seat. The homes we live in, the cars we drive, the movies we watch, and the internet we waste time on were all created by humans. In the majority of our daily experiences we are interacting with other humans in places and with objects created by humans. In class, we talked about how when we were younger, we felt closer to animals. We watched movies and tv programs about animals and most of us hugged and cuddled with beloved stuffed animals. As kids, animals came up in our daily lives more than as we get older. Animals were a hot topic in school and I can't speak for all kid-kind, but I saved up quarters hoping that one day I could buy a horse. The division comes as we get older and our daily lives don't come across the topic of animals as much as it used to. The things that dominate our lives now are all man made. When we don't interact with other species we begin to think we are more significant than them because we can build things like cities and transportation.
As children, we feel a special connection with animals, one that many adults view as innocent, even naive; as if this connection somehow differs from that between two humans. But the only real disconnect between two species is actually about communication. Many would agree that we can, and do, communicate with animals--just on a different level. Maybe kids understand that better than adults, and we lose that sense as we "develop"; we effectively distance ourselves and compartmentalize things into clear-cut, black and white categories. Animals and humans. Talking and understanding. Growing up we learn that society is about the relationship between man and man, human and human, so our lives revolve around human relations. Why do we view a child's pet rock as something innocent, naive, when this interaction gives the child something more than any human could? We should expand our definition of society to encompass more than human-human relations, because more life exists on this planet than humans.
ReplyDeleteI think that the separation between humans and animals is both a social construct and human nature. Humans apart from animals think higher on a philosophical level. Humans are also living and breathing in different societies and environments. Some humans are surrounded by sky scrapers and other woods. Birds for instance depending on a species take on a different life span, in that a bird migrates and mates in the exact same area every year. Humans however often don't migrate, but when they do it mostly for different reasons. This barrier can also be shown through human nature in that since we have almost no similarities to most animals, in the kind of lives we live, we may not associate ourselves with each other. Humans don't lay eggs in nests at the top of trees. We cannot compare ourselves though on moral reasoning even though that is one of the main differences, because our idea of specialization may not be the same. In other words birds have advantages like all other animals, that we may not have. So no we cannot compare ourselves to animals on a moral and psychological level.
ReplyDeleteI mainly think that the the division between "us" and "them" is a result of social construct. The reason I say this is because from the very beginning of civilization, with construction and everything else happening, animals were almost always forced off their land. Though I'm not defending us humans, I think that it is in part human nature to mistakenly think that we are superior to anything or anyone if we have the ability to do more than them. Because of this, I don't think humans have ever seriously thought of creating an environment where humans and animals can coexist without humans dominating, trying to act like the boss, or thinking they are the most important ones. Many times, due to social construct, animals are only taken advantage of. When we find land that we like, we decide that it is ours and begin to construct without minding if there is some other life who's home it already is. Because this "other life" is almost always animals, we almost always drive them off, or we keep them if we find them useful to us. On a separate note, society has made relationships between us and then seem like a very childish thing, so many people seem to "grow out of" this type of relationship as they get older since it's the "normal" thing to do. Besides the fact that we have driven animals away, I also agree with Alex Murdoch in that we often don't even seem to have time for the animals we do have in our everyday lives, due the incredibly busy and stressful lives we humans have created for ourselves. For question number two, I don't think we should make moral distinctions based on the ability to reason or an ability to suffer and feel pain. Like I mentioned earlier, humans think they are superior to anything they think they can do more than or anything they think they are more intelligent than. Due to this ignorance, humans have come to think they are superior to animals, and they think they have the right to do some of the awful things they do to them because they aren't as "important" as humans. I think this is absolutely wrong and stupid because in the end we are all the same. Also, I don't think that we have the right to assume that animals don't have the ability to reason, feel pain or love the same way we do because we really just don't know. I believe all animals reason, feel pain, and love like we do, however, I don't think the fact that they express it differently allows us to decide that we are superior. (I honestly don't know if any of this made sense because I feel like I could write an entire paper on all three of these topics, so I'm having some trouble condensing my thoughts...I hope it made sense.)
ReplyDeleteI feel the division between humans and animals is a social construct. Older civilizations and societies revered animals. They also regretted killing them and often used every part of the animal. In society today (at least in they United States), animals aren't viewed as equal. We don't treat them with the same respect that we do others further pushing the idea that animals are different and not very important. This mindset could be potentially dangerous as it can result in driving certain animals to extinction.
ReplyDeleteWhen we are younger, I feel that we don't really think about differences between us and others. I use to watch a lot of kid shows when I was younger and I never thought anything different when I would see an animal. Since it was a part of my daily life I didn't think much of it. As I aged, I began to become more interested in animals and as I learned how dangerous and large animals can be, I become more distant. I began to see certain animals as dangerous which lead me to not trust all animals even though they are all special in their own ways.
(My number 2 was meant to refer to question 3)
1) I believe the division between the two is done by society. I don't think there is ANYthing physically stopping humans and animals from having a friendship. Obviously the whole mating situation is different. For me, personally, I have never been an outright loud activist for animal rights I guess. Obviously I care about animals and feel they should be treated properly, but I've never been the one to say that I think humans and animals are equal in all ways. This feeling in my head has most likely been, in some way, shaped by what society says is normal to feel and say when it comes to animals and our relationships with them.
ReplyDeleteComing into this class, I didn't think it would really have an effect on my opinion of my relationships/interactions with animals. But it has. I don't think it's necessarily changed my opinion on how humans should treat animals, but I think this class has helped provide new insight. Before, I didn't have the same respect for animals' feelings/emotions as I do now. Discussions like the one in class the other day about the capacity to love are the ones that are shaping my feelings about animals. I don't just see them as pets anymore I guess. That has probably been my biggest change throughout this class so far.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the boundaries between humans and animals is envisioned by society. As the social construct of the world has evolved, animals have gone from being seen by humans as our equals to being seen as less superior to us. However, this said, we still have more knowledge and possess the ability to communicate with language to one another so the division may also be seen a little bit as human nature.
ReplyDeleteAt a younger age I failed to see the differences between humans and animals. I do love animals, but like Alex Clark, I have never really felt like an activist for animals when it comes to equality. Through discussion this class has helped me understand the viewpoints of those who are bigger activists than I am and has possibly made me more of a supporter of animal equality than before.