How do you compare between man being an animal and man being rational animal?
Man Being Animal vs. being rational Animal
There are many dissimilar viewpoints, and each has its examination of what a human being (man, but exclusive of the masculinity bias) is. Starting with man’s rational capability, I put forward that it does not work to state that man being a “rational animal.” Aristotle projected that humans are all animals having a rational capability, and this makes more logic to me. Man is collective, accomplished of rational actions.
I would suggest that humans are earthly animals having a rational talent, but that we do not constantly use it. Besides, I would categorically state that man is spiritual animals in the identical intellect, animals with a capability for theology that could or might not use, independently and together, (Glasser, C 2011). The broad outlook of man in beliefs is as an alignment of mankind as entire and the environment of mankind. Man in the viewpoint is frequently seen as wickedness and is seen to take, and be gluttonous, immoral, and also built with bad meaning from the commencement. According to Glasser, C (2011), this is factual in a rational intelligence as well. Devoid of character control man is not diverse than savage beasts as well as animals who simply take as they gratify and that is why man can and has been committing murders and misdeeds.
Glasser, C. (2011). Rational emotions: Animal rights theory, feminist critiques, and activist insight. In The Psychology of the Human-Animal Bond (pp. 307-319). Springer, New York, NY.