Humanity vs. Animality.
What does the world need?
Carl Linnaeus’ identity remained unknown to me, for a long time, despite the fact that he gave me my birth name, a name that gives me my identity. He received criticism for it: for putting me (and you) under the same taxonomical classification as monkeys and apes’, given the popular belief (then and I guess today, as well) that humans hold a spiritually higher position in the hierarchy of life on Earth, and for demoting humans, by placing them under nature and not as its ruler. This happened around the middle of the 18th century.
Modern science had just taken birth, and was trying to find its feet in an unfavourable, and sometimes hostile environment.
In his book Dieta Naturalis, Carl, a Swedish biologist, a physician and father of modern taxonomy said, “One should not vent one’s wrath on animals, Theology decree that man has a soul and that the animals are mere ‘automata mechanica,’ but I believe they would be better advised that animals have a soul and that the difference is of nobility.”
By alluding to “nobility”, Carl in a way, created two moral spheres: humanity and animality; the superiority between the two clearly established in human phrases such as “brought out the animal in him”, “released the animal in her” and “unleashed the animal in him”. Fast forward to the 21st century. Science has established the facts and cemented the truth that all species of life (including homo sapiens) have descended from a common ancestor.
However, a question still remains unanswered: has science delivered its verdict on the question of superiority of the moral spheres? Maybe, this is a question that I and you need to think about.
