Animals: Who or What? The Boundaries of Identity

For centuries, humans have wrestled with the question of how to classify animals in the moral and intellectual hierarchy of life. Are animals simple what's, defined by their utility to humans as creatures of labor, companionship, or food? Or, in their complexity, do some animals, particularly those capable of advanced cognition, emotion, and social interaction, cross the threshold into who status?

This debate takes on new urgency as science uncovers more about the emotional depth of animals, their capacity for complex social behavior, and even their ability to communicate in sophisticated ways. In this section, we explore whether animals should remain in the realm of what—resources, creatures, commodities—or be recognized as who, autonomous beings with distinct identities, emotions, and rights.

The Case for Animals as a "What"

Historically, animals have been classified as objects—commodities in the human world, primarily valued for their utility. Whether used for food, labor, or scientific study, animals have long been viewed as what's, subordinate to human needs. From this perspective, animals exist for human benefit and are understood in terms of their functionality or service to mankind.

Key Arguments for Animals as a "What":

1. Animals Serve Human Purposes

   • In the traditional framework, animals are domesticated for specific purposes: livestock for food, horses for labor, dogs for protection or companionship, and so on. They are bred, traded, and used according to human desires, much like tools or other resources.

2. Animals Lack Self-Reflective Consciousness

   • Many argue that while animals demonstrate instinctive intelligence, they lack the self-awareness and introspective consciousness that humans associate with being a "who." Without the ability to understand their own existence in a reflective, philosophical way, animals are considered fundamentally different from humans.

3. Ethical Boundaries of Utility

   • While animals may elicit empathy from humans, their legal and ethical treatment is largely dictated by their utility. Animal welfare laws exist to prevent unnecessary suffering, but these laws typically still place animals in the realm of property—valuable to humans, but not autonomous beings with rights equivalent to humans.

The Case for Animals as a "Who"

Recent advances in ethology (the study of animal behavior), neuroscience, and psychology suggest that animals may possess emotional intelligence, social complexity, and even self-awareness far greater than previously thought. Some animals—especially primates, dolphins, elephants, and octopuses—demonstrate behaviors that suggest a level of consciousness akin to that of humans. The argument for animals as "who" challenges us to reconsider the moral, legal, and philosophical treatment of animals.

Key Arguments for Animals as a "Who":

1. Complex Cognition and Social Structures

   • Many animals exhibit complex social behaviors, form long-lasting bonds, and demonstrate the ability to solve problems in innovative ways. For example, elephants show evidence of mourning their dead, while dolphins engage in cooperative hunting strategies and exhibit self-awareness in mirror tests. These behaviors suggest that certain animals may possess a level of intelligence and emotion previously attributed only to humans.

2. Emotional Depth and Suffering

   • Studies have shown that animals, particularly mammals, experience a wide range of emotions, including joy, fear, grief, and even empathy. The recognition that animals can suffer in similar ways to humans challenges the ethical justification for treating them as mere objects. Some argue that this emotional depth grants animals a level of moral standing, meaning they should be treated as "who," with certain rights and protections.

3. Language and Communication

   • Animals such as great apes and dolphins have demonstrated the ability to use rudimentary forms of language and complex communication. This capacity for symbolic interaction suggests that they may possess some level of self-awareness and intentionality, key components of identity and agency.

4. Legal and Ethical Shifts

   • There are growing movements toward granting animals legal personhood, particularly in cases involving great apes, elephants, and whales. In some legal contexts, animals are being granted rights similar to those of humans, such as protections against unjust captivity or exploitation. This shift in legal frameworks challenges the long-held view of animals as property or tools and suggests that certain animals may indeed qualify as "who."

Philosophical and Ethical Tensions

The debate over whether animals should be classified as who or what forces us to confront deep questions about intelligence, consciousness, and ethics. If animals are capable of suffering, self-awareness, and complex social interaction, should we continue to treat them as objects for human use? Or should we recognize their intrinsic value as sentient beings deserving of rights and moral consideration?

Key Questions Explored:

1. Can Animals Be Self-Aware?

   • Self-awareness is often seen as the dividing line between human and non-human entities. If animals like dolphins and primates can recognize themselves in a mirror, does this imply they possess some form of identity?

2. What Are the Ethical Implications of Viewing Animals as "Who"?

   • If we start classifying animals as "who," what ethical responsibilities follow? Should animals have rights, like the right to freedom from captivity or the right to live in their natural habitats undisturbed by humans?

3. Where Do We Draw the Line?

   • Not all animals exhibit the same level of cognitive and emotional complexity. Should only certain animals (e.g., primates, dolphins, elephants) be considered "who," or should this classification extend to all animals capable of suffering and social interaction?

4. The Future of Animal Rights

   • As science continues to uncover more about animal cognition, should we expect further legal and moral developments that push animals from the "what" category into "who"? If so, what will this mean for industries like farming, entertainment, and even pet ownership?

Animals: Beyond Who or What?

Some argue that the very question of whether animals are "who" or "what" may be an oversimplification. Animals, like AI, could occupy a third category, one that acknowledges their intelligence, emotion, and social complexity but doesn’t equate them directly to human beings. This category would recognize animals as living beings with unique capabilities and moral considerations, distinct from both human entities and inanimate objects.

This new framework would require a reassessment of how we interact with animals in our legal, ethical, and cultural systems, giving animals a place in the world that acknowledges their intrinsic value without conflating them with human personhood.

Conclusion

The debate over whether animals are who or what is not merely an academic question—it carries profound implications for ethics, law, and the way we relate to the natural world. As we continue to learn more about animal cognition and emotion, the boundaries between human and non-human blur, forcing us to reconsider the traditional classifications that have governed our treatment of animals for millennia.