Emotional responses of humans

The argument

Humans are set apart from animals due to their ability to feel emotions more deeply than other animals. Humans are the only species that are capable of crying as an emotional response to a distressing situation. Our ability to cry in reaction to a multitude of feelings, from sadness to joy, makes us distinctly different from animals. Human behaviors in response to emotion show that humans are the only species to have this depth of emotional response. In addition, humans are the only species known to blush in reaction to a situation as well. The reddening of their cheeks is an involuntary emotional behavior that occurs in response to a variety of reasons. Although researchers have confirmed that blushing is likely an emotional response, it is unclear which emotional responses cause this behavior. This shows the unequivocal complexity of human emotional behaviors, setting humans apart from animals.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Crying does not actually separate humans from other animals. When defined as an emotional behavior that is accompanied by wailing and screaming, crying is actually a response seen across many species of animals. Similar to infants crying out as a way to gain attention, young primates will cry out as a form of communication or in response to negative emotions. While tears for emotional reasons are unique to humans, the concept of crying is not.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The counter-argument on record separates two claims that the premise merges. Emotional tearing does appear to be uniquely human, but crying as a distress vocalisation is widespread — young primates cry out to summon attention much as human infants do — so the behaviour is not the dividing line. 'Feeling emotions more deeply' is in any case not measurable from the outside, and no method for comparing depth across species is offered. [Rejecting P2] Blushing depends on a visible response in facial skin, so its apparent uniqueness may reflect what can be observed rather than what occurs. The premise treats an observational limit as a species boundary. [Rejecting P3] The argument undercuts itself here: it concedes that which emotions produce blushing is unclear, then cites that same uncertainty as proof of complexity. Not knowing what a response signals is not evidence that it signals something sophisticated. [Rejecting C] Behaviours conventionally taken to indicate complex emotion — grief, consolation, reconciliation after conflict — are documented in elephants, corvids and great apes, so an argument resting on emotional response has to explain why two physiological markers outweigh those, and it does not.