It would seem that for most of recorded history the opposite was true with many viewing the fork as something sinister on account of its resemblance to the devil's trident, or pitchfork, where its name is derived.

To the point that you've made, there might have been some who held attitudes regarding your purposed line of thought in the 19th century. Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin in his "The Physiology of Taste: Or Meditations on Transcendental Gastronomy" wrote,

“The pleasure of eating is one we share with animals; it depends solely on hunger and what is needed to satisfy it. The pleasures of the table are known only to the human race; they depend on careful preparations for the serving of the meal, on the choice of place, and on the thoughtful assembling of guests.”

But nothing specific to the fork in of itself.

There is a book that might be of interest to you by Ernest Becker called "The Denial of Death" which doesn't answer specifically the question you're asking but the first few chapters cover the psychological distress humans quietly deal with as we come to terms with our finite creatureliness in spite of our godlike cognitive abilities. He posits that we're animals who don't want to be animals and points to religious traditions that cast shame on the more primal parts of human behaviour, such as sex etc so this idea of separating ourselves from animals has definitely been thought about.