English Essays on Humans’ Significance over Animals
Humans are definitely superior to animals. Philosophers have put in record that the life of human beings is more important when judged against that of animals (Townley 512-520). For instance, once an animal dies it does not go to either heaven or hell and sadly is forgotten forever because it does not have a soul; upon their death, animals rot, crack back to dust thus become forgotten eternally. When they perish, the souls of human beings have the opportunity of meeting the creator, and that relies on individuals’ life on earth through their ways of conduct and interrelations with others.
A wide pool of studies outlines that humans are significant to animals even before the eyes of God (Townley 512-520). They also insist that it is by God’s design that humans have authority over all other creation. This makes humans the most significant beings on the globe and animals are under the authority of human beings. Here comes the question of why animals do not possess the name ‘being’; this is only because humans are the supreme beings while animals are under human control.
Human beings have the power of creativity while animal dot not. The power of creativity enhances the ability to visualize things thus humans flourish and become more intelligent than animals. Townley affirms that humans’ ability to make sound decisions and inventions surpasses any animal’s ability (512-520). By having the ability to reason, humans can question their individual existence and have concepts, for example, morals and compassion. On the other hand, animals do not have possession of such features. Once born, humans have potential; this means that they can do a lot more than animals. For instance, human beings could learn and make significant contributions on different domains such as science and engineering. These explanations make it evident that humans are superior to animals in all aspects.
Work Cited
Townley, Cynthia. “Animals and humans: Grounds for separation?” Journal of Social Philosophy 41.4 (2010): 512-526.