I don't know how right you are, Jenyar.
People aren't ruled by their instincts (although they can let themselves be). Animals don't reason before they act. Yes, they make choices - but again, those are fight or flee decisions.
This is pretty wrong. People are mostly instinct! Would you jump in front of an oncoming car? Would you jump off a bridge knowing you would die? Would you shoot yourself in the face, knowing you would die? Those aren't based on reason, they are based on instinct.
And yes, there are people who commit suicide, but suicide happens in the animal kingdom as well. Some pack animals die immediately even when minorly injured by a predator, for the survival of the pack. Others commit suicide so their offspring can eat. A species of spider actually lets the offspring eat her!
And in a way, if you look at it, suicide in humans can be broken down to the very same reasons.
If you only had one peice of bread a day to eat, would you eat it, or give it to your son, knowing that if you fed your son, you would die? If you had to jump in front of a car to save your son, would you do it?
Even the cases where people feel hopeless and useless, they believe that killing themselves would be beneficial to their families. Sure, it is warped, but I wouldn't call it reasoning. Suicide isn't something you can reason, it's something that comes from an overwhelming "need."
Animals aren't held responsible for their actions - people simply decide for them if their actions are beneficial or detrimental
This isn't true. No living being--human or animal--willingly does something that it knows will be detrimental to itself or it's family, whichever takes presidence. If a human kills, it is for the same reasons that an animal does it; to produce a more suitable enviroment for itself and it's family. (I don't just say offspring, becuase it is not always the offspring in which an animal is trying to protect...some species protect the entire family unit, while others are only loyal to the offspring) And if reason had a part in the decisionmaking of whether or not to kill, then murders would only take place when one KNEW it was in self-defense, or when one KNEW it could get away with it.
You don't see animals standing back so that humans can have a better life, do you?
Never. But do you ever see a human stand back so an animal can have a better life? No. You. Don't.
Again, this falls under instinct. An animal will not kill a human only when it knows that there is no threat, or the threat is not as great as the resulting death from hunger. This is why a tiger in captivity will allow a human to pet it, while wild tigers will not. And a human will not kill an animal only when it does not need food, and sees no threat. Think about it: If a woman running an animal shelter found herself unable to leave the building, eventually, no matter how much she cared for those animals, would eat them, wouldn't she? Of course she would. Humans NEVER stand back so the animal can have a better life...they only stand back when the don't have to step in.
We have the responsibility, and as we have concluded, it isn't only because we are further up the evolutionary ladder - that's a cop-out.
THIS statement is soley based upon your religious beliefs. And honestly, it's my opinion that you calling it a "cop-out" is in itself a cop-out. There is no fact behind your statement, there has been nothing "concluded". Our only responsibility is to make sure we have enough animals and plants to live off of, and that's it. Evolution only lets us think that far ahead.
JD
