Tyrant

There is one condition of humans that I believe is most important to recognize. This condition is a byproduct of intelligence, and before learning of it, you must first learn a simple logic. This logic is that the word logic itself refers more to our understanding of a certain subject, and in this sense, logic is learned. Reasoning, however, is how humans use the logic to serve their own needs, and this is the one human condition most important to recognize, humans are tyrants. Not just practically or realistically either, no as humans, we can be tyrants with abstract thoughts or intangible ideas. We reason our actions so as to justify them to ourselves. We can understand our effect on the planet in grave detail, yet we seek to first live comfortably in our own accord and then care for the planet. Tyrants of course have three evident markers: lawlessness, hubris and fear.

Tyrant or not... We are the King of the planet!


There is nothing wrong with seeking our own accord to live by, but problems arise when people with different perspectives on how to live confront each other. Meat eaters are in conflict with vegetarians; the smoker is in conflict with the non-smoker; democrats are in conflict with republicans, and there are many more examples of this confrontation, but since we can reason, we also see people arguing over the affect of human development (scientific progress) on Earth (global warming, deforestation, pollution... etc), and we also see humans arguing with other humans over the treatment of animals. By using abstract logic, we are able to identify with the animal and somehow feel its pain, relate its pain with our own at times. This is obvious when we see comparison of slaughterhouses with the holocaust. The cause of all this conflict is that we reason. In a social environment, the dominant species in a region will either allow a foreign species to stroll through their territory one of them will exert dominance over the other. This is how animals conflict with one another, fighting over territory or social dominance. Humans, as species, are bound to do the same as it's only logical. Humans are the dominant species on the surface of the planet; we seek to understand the other species with logic, but how can we? There is a communication barrier, but "to say that animals have their own accounts in accordance with the structure of their own minds, to which we don't have access... is naive" (Coetzee, 91). Humans, as the dominant species, can reason to a certain extent the world perspective of any animal. But if we can all reason the perspective of any animal, why is there conflict? Clearly, we reason differently from one another. We justify our actions with individual reasoning, and by doing so, we break our own justification system; there is no representation of the whole species just individual beings, and as individual beings, we are in conflict with each other. As species, there is no specific order between us. We have laws, but we also have criminals. In this logic, humans are lawless species, but the question remains unanswered, why are humans in conflict with animals?

Obey the Law or else!!!


The answer is subjective to a certain degree. I feel that some humans feel that it's more important for all the species in the biosphere to coexist with one another; these individuals have reasoned that this is a possibility, but they don't represent the masses of human population. Clearly, injustice towards animals is prevalent in human society. Bullfighters, hunters (only the ones who practice it as a sport), poachers... they all are present in our society, and using learned logic, one can reason that because they exist these professions are therefore accepted. Another perspective is that of those who believe in speceisism. Even when confronted with evidence of human cruelty to animals, these people can't recognize our animal treatment as immoral. Nay! These people refuse to accept this. They reason with us saying that humans are the dominant species and treatment of animals isn't a concern. Notice, there is rarely an acknowledgment of the actual treatment of animals because the argument itself is discredited. This exemplifies human hubris. Notice the argument Kafka presents for an Ape in captivity. The ape states, "I learned, gentlemen. Alas, one learns when one has to... ruthlessly. One supervises oneself with a whip and tears..." (Anthology, 369). If humans can indeed reason abstract ideas, then the perspective of this ape ought to be shocking! "One supervises oneself with a whip and tears..." (Anthology, 369). This statement speaks volumes of our treatment of animals, and still, there are those who discredit this argument. This is clearly the effect of our hubris.

Consider the world... not just yourself!


Then of course, there is fear. The very emotion that we presumably instill within animals that drives our actions, or should I say lack of action. Humans will simply ignore the animal treatment issue altogether as presented on Earthlings. Humans are simply afraid to take responsibility for animal treatment. Humans don't wish to question where their food comes from because they fear that they might be unable to bear the knowledge and continue their dietary methods. This is a fear of change, a fear that if I do something then I will bound myself by some social law to become a vegetarian. It's not a probable outcome, but many people claim an inability to consume meat after learning of the actuality of animal treatment. They don't actually fear the concept of themselves as a vegetarian, but I believe they fear the concept of giving up meat. This seems like a ridiculous claim, but understand that it's the reasoning of the masses of a fearful species, and their logic, while present, is reasoned to be irrational. Their perspective is that they simply want to hold on to the traditions passed down from generations, but they can still do this even if they decide to do something about animal treatment. This is why we as a species can and must overcome this fear of change.


Fear Not! Change can be good!


This is an interesting perspective... perhaps there is logical reasoning for change as well



Try to use your own logic to determine whether or not humans are tyrants of this planet. Clearly, we are lawless (at times), and we most definitely have some hubris; we're even fearful. Logically, I have reasoned human beings, as a species, to be tyrants, so why is it that we have become so? Clearly, some of us missed the signs of our transition from a dominant species to a tyrant species, but what to do now? If we are to cease our existence as tyrants, we must ask this question of the person we seek to become inside. We must use our gift of reasoning to reason with ourselves. What is the fair reaction? What is the right thing to do here? Reasoning is our compass, and we must follow its bearing where we reason that to be!

Follow The Reasoning Compass!