Any rational man will advocate for their cause and say it is a valiant, pragmatic one. When I say pragmatic, when I give my pragmatic approach, I mean applied in the context today or applied contemporarily. It makes more sense to view man as differing from animals by kind not degree for three reasons. Before I give those reasons I think it is important to recognize what we mean when we say degree or kind. 

How are humans different from animals by degree or kind? In the late 19th century Charles Darwin, on his famous expedition to the Galapagos, observed its natural system and concluded that we (human nature) are different from animals by degree. This follows the theory of evolution. It’s a true, scientific fact, but can be debated in several ways. Mortimer J. Adler gives a good rebut to Darwin’s theory in his conception of Great Ideas. But I will not debate the facts of science, specifically how Darwin’s facts are applied, but I will argue that today it makes more sense to view the nature of man as differing in kind. So technically I am applying the science, but I am not taking a traditional approach that other scholars like Adler made in the past. I’m sure this will make sense as you read on! 

We have very similar DNA to a banana. Our origins differ from bananas in degree. Darwin examined developed species and concluded that we are no different (or not drastically different) than monkeys, implying that we are different from monkeys (as all animals) in degree. We are all connected in some way. I do not refute this. 

I’m sure you can understand the difference between degree and kind. For three reasons I argue humans should differ from monkeys, bananas, and everything (all natural beings) in kind. The first reason starts simply- the case of eugenics relies on humans differing in kind, and was allowed or was a key component of the ethical foundation to mass genocide in examples throughout history. 

The most typical example of this was the Nazis in World War II. Touching films, or primary sources of the well-documented mass genocide of Jews and other “inferiors” in Europe, point out that to convince the general population that genocide was acceptable they promulgated mass propaganda that classified true ideal humans and non-humans, vermin, animals, or in this case, Jews. Ironically they were killed in gas chambers by insecticides that would otherwise be used to fumigate homes, clearing rodents and other pests. 

This was predicated on a distinction between men and animals. If men and animals were closely aligned, where a distinction was only possible by degree, the moral weight of mass murder significantly lessened. Soldiers were convinced that Jews were subhuman, no different than animals, reinforcing the twisted ethics that fueled mass genocide.

My second point is the most practical. As we transition to a plant-based diet (which I have no critiques against) our reliance on meat will become more and more antiquated over time. In the United States, almost everyone depends on meat as part of their diet and general survival. To transition away from this would be a disaster. It must happen gradually, and this is a sure undisputable fact. 

If we were to view animals as differing only by degree, we would afford them moral rights, protection, and duty. Killing them in CAFOs or mass-produced meat operations would be impossible, or morally corrupt, similar to the treatment of Jews during their ethnic purge in WWII. To survive a transition, it must be gradual. We cannot afford to place heightened moral weight on cows, pigs, chickens, or other slaughtered animals, because our economy and ways of life couldn’t handle it. This is the most practical and understandable interpretation of the nature of man. 

Finally, my most stretched reason (although these points are not mutually contingent) follows the idea that religion is the opiate of the masses, and must accept this as a fact for my point to be valid. Karl Marx originally explained this idea in the context of his critique of capitalist and other non-communist modes of society. I would like to twist this and argue that this is a good thing, it keeps the average church-goer engaged in good living and productive positive nature. I would also have to argue (and this is a hard thing to accept) that on average, the religious man is more productive, peaceful, and contributive to society than the non-religious man. 

You can argue this in many ways. A famous one, say a religiously-convicted man set out to kill you. He was told by some phenomenon that God needs you killed. In this case, you would be much worse off than a non-religious man attempting to kill you, based on orders from his environment or other human command. It’s similar to orders from a mafia versus orders from a God. They are both mentally perturbed in some way, but I can imagine the latter (religiously convinced) will stop at nothing (putting his life on the line) to see an end to you. This is a warranted critique. 

But it’s why I say on average. On average, a religious man who contributes to society and goes to church is much more peaceful, productive, and contributive than the average non-religious citizen. Religion is the opiate of the masses, and my interpretation, if we viewed this as a good thing, an opiate is beneficial. 

Religion (most commonly Western religions) view man as differing in kind by animals rather than degree. I would like to clarify that I apply the United States (contemporary United States society) to this pragmatic approach. In the United States, most if not all predominant religions view man as substantially different in kind than natural animals. We must follow this interpretation if we are to keep productive healthy members of society. And that is my claim!

What are some nuances? I’m sure you can find some. I would like to finish with a clarification, an open end for discussion- the difference between nature and origin and how Darwin’s study affected both. We’ve already discussed nature, how Darwin concluded that apes are minimally different than humans, and it’s only a matter of degree. But the origins are the most confusing because he also concluded that we come from the same origins as all animals and plants in our natural world. This is of course true, following the theory of evolution, that we are all on this Earth, that we all came from the Cambrian Explosion millions of years ago. 

Does this conflict with my interpretation? No. I argued that science is irrelevant in my interpretation. Science and the scientific method are impossible to rebut, but applied science (especially when rebutting Darwin’s scientific conclusions) is something I believe a rational thinker can do without absolving facts. We must always commit to scientific truth, but when we apply it, the facts of science can take a turn in supportive arguments. 

Finally, as I’ve mentioned, this does not apply to Eastern religions because they view animals as having similar status to humans. I am not opposed to giving all creations similar status to humans, but for our way of life as the dominant species, drawing a difference in kind between humans and animals is necessary.