So are humans considered animals by the same definition of the term animal used in everyday colloquial conversation? Or are those definitions different?

Question

Like “animals” in daily conversation is defined as non human animals vs humans being classified as animals has a different definition?

Answer 1

That's an interesting question! The meaning of terms can be fluid. If I ask you what a game is, you might reply that it's a competitive contest between two groups - and I might answer back that your answer excludes four-person video games. You might amend your definition and say that it's just a competition, period - and again, I would say that one can play a game alone, trying to beat a high score, or that children often play games that have no clear winner (i.e. ring around the rosie). The best answer to what is a game is probably "it depends." So, in everyday language, we do seem to separate humans and animals. We draw distinctions for legal reasons, too. Persons can be held responsible for their crimes but animals aren't though to be moral agents. But just because people use terms in a particular way doesn't mean that there's a biological basis for it. Humans are plainly the outcome of the same evolutionary process that created all of the other animals. In ordinary parlance, we might separate ourselves from other living things, and thus act as though we aren't animals. However, we're made of cells, have DNA, have live births, and use language, just like many other mammals and animals. tldr: the definitions are probably different, but that doesn't mean we ought to treat them as equal. One is rooted in biology and the other is not.