Replace "human" with "living being" because humans really aren't that special 😉

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

We interpret animal behavior on the assumption that the animal yields to the impulse which prevails at the moment. As we observe that the animal feeds, cohabits, and attacks other animals or men, we speak of its instincts of nourishment, of reproduction, and of aggression. We assume that such instincts are innate and peremptorily ask for satisfaction.

But it is different with man. Man is not a being who cannot help yielding to the impulse that most urgently asks for satisfaction. Man is a being capable of subduing his instincts, emotions, and impulses; he can rationalize his behavior. He renounces the satisfaction of a burning impulse in order to satisfy other desires. He is not a puppet of his appetites. A man does not ravish every female that stirs his senses; he does not devour every piece of food that entices him; he does not knock down every fellow he would like to kill. He arranges his wishes and desires into a scale, he chooses; in short, he acts. What distinguishes man from beasts is precisely that he adjusts his behavior deliberatively. Man is the being that has inhibitions, that can master his impulses and desires, that has the power to suppress instinctive desires and impulses.

https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/mises-on-human-action

Again, I think Mises was very limited in only considering the narrow domain of human/animal actions in this universe (but going deeper wouldn't have served a purpose for his larger work).

I'm not convinved that strictly man is capable of control and strictly animals are not; that dichotomy can't be true, exceptions on both sides.

Plus, what about our Sun? Dead lifeless object only there for humans to act against? Pretty arrogant thinking coming from humans IMO 🤷‍♂️