More handpicked essays just for you.
David Hume being human
David Hume on human nature and the environment
David Hume on human nature and the environment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Men have thought themselves to be the superior species for a long time, but Peter Singer brings a new perspective on the topic in his essay entitled Speciesism and Moral Status. Singer’s new way of thinking of it states that determining morals status requires the comparison between the cognitive abilities of humans and nonhumans. The main points he focusses on in his essay are cognitive capacities between animals and humans with severe mental retardation, religion affecting human’s beliefs of superiority, and finally the ability to suffer and how similar humans and nonhumans are. Singer begins by talking about how there are several species of animals that are capable of doing more than that of a human with severe mental retardation. When you look at animals such as the gorilla Koko, who has a higher cognitive capacity then a human with severe mental retardation, this raises some questions to the superiority of …show more content…
While if a cow is killed at thirty months, it is not more tragic than to be killed at forty, fifty, or sixty months, no one will say a thing. This prime example that humans are thought to be more superior, they think nothing of the cow and how he suffers. So Singer rephrases his argument to compare a human with low cognitive ability and a cow, they both do not have plans for the future, so the new argument would be the difference between killing a human and a human with severe mental retardation. This although may raise a lot of controversy, but it is the say as the humans and nonhuman. Singer also says the capability to suffer is a big aspect of life. Every living animal has the ability to suffer, meaning humans and nonhumans are very similar. Whether it is a human or a nonhuman, when they lose someone close to them, you see a change in their
Smith, Wesley J. "The Trouble with Transhumanism." The Center for Bioethics and Culture RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2014.
In the paper “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” Peter Singer defends the idea that is our moral duty to help others in need. Since there are other people in the world that are suffering and we our in a position to give, we are obligated to help create change in the world . In this paper I will explain Peter Singer’s view about how it is our moral duty to help those who are suffering in the world. Then I will present an implication of Peter Singer claim that implies how we are obligated to give upon to others that are suffering. I will then explain an argurment to provide a reason of why someone should support Peter Singer principle. Carried to a logical conclusion, Peter Singer aruement that his principle is clearly obligatory than superagory. I will consider the two actions that Peter Singer gives to distinguish duty versues chariy and argue that his principle should e consider a superagoty action. Since his
While I agree with Singer 's argument in principle, I have a problem with his conclusion. In my view, the conclusion that Singer espouses is underdeveloped. For instance, when Singer talks about the strong and weak
Singer suggests that while everyone is created equal, not everyone has the exact same rights. For instance, while men and women are equal, the right of women to have an abortion does not mean men have the right to an abortion since they do not need have the ability to given birth. From this, it follows that while animals do not have the ability to comprehend rights, such as the right to vote, they do have rights. Singer states “Surely every sentient being is capable of leading a
...ting pain is too scattered and too varying to be wholly accounted for in the calculus of the utilitarian Singer. Since humans have varying experiences, the amount of grief experienced by each human is correspondingly different as a product of their multifaceted experiences. If this is the case, then the amount of grief and pain experienced by a certain event cannot be objectively measured even among members of the same species – how then can we hope to objectively measure and quantify the pain felt by different horses because of the same “hard slap across… [their] rump[s]” (Singer, Animal Liberation, p. 15)? While the minimization of pain may be a useful tool in theory, it unfortunately renders itself ineffective when held up to the crucible of a world replete with emotions, distinct personalities and experiences, and the unique individuality of each living creature.
Through an understanding of natural selection, I have come to accept that all creatures currently in existence are equal. However, for the purposes of this paper, I am limiting my question to the relevance of equality for human beings. I am narrowing my categories because morality is a human created concept couched in language, the use of which differentiates humans from other organisms. Dennett claims:
In his piece, “Human Dignity”, Francis Fukuyama explores the perception of human dignity in today's society. This perception is defined by what Fukuyama calls “Factor X”. This piece draws attention to how human dignity has been affected recently and its decline as we go into the future. Using the input given by the Dalai Lama in his piece, “Ethics and New Genetics”, the implementing of factor X and human dignity on future generations will be explored. Through the use of the pieces, “Human Dignity and Human Reproductive Cloning by Steven Malby, Genetic Testing and Its Implications: Human Genetics Researchers Grapple with Ethical Issues by Isaac Rabino, and Gender Differences in the Perception of Genetic Engineering Applied to Human Reproduction by Carol L. Napolitano and Oladele A. Ogunseitan, the decline on the amount of human dignity found in today's society as well as the regression in Factor X that can be found today compared to times past. Society's twist on ethics as a result of pop culture and an increase in genetic engineering has caused for the decline in the amount of dignity shown by the members of society and the regression of Factor X to take hold in today's society.
To ascribe an entity with moral status ― whether an adult human, infant, foetus, or non-human animal ― is to declare that its treatment by other moral agents is mo...
The fact that humans can take the lives of animals depicts their lack of moral value in relation to humans. However, if moral value is tied to moral rights, how does one compare the moral rights of humans and animals and why do humans possess more moral rights than nonhuman species? The main reason why some may say that humans possess more moral rights than animals is because they are not self aware and lack cognitive capacities. In Empty Cages: Animal Rights and Vivisection, Tom Regan states that those who deny animals of their rights usually emphasize on the uniqueness of human beings by stating that, "...we understand our own mortality and make moral choices. Other animals do none of these things. That is why we have rights and they do not (p. 100)." However, in The Mental Powers of Man and the Lower Animals by Charles Darwin, he states that animals, or at least nonhuman mammals, share the same cognitive abilities as humans. For instance, nonhuman mammals are able to "learn from experience, remember the past, anticipate the future (p.102)." Additionally, nonhuman mammals are also capable of experiencing fear, jealousy, and sadness. With these cognitive abilities, nonhuman mammals should then be qualified to obtain moral rights, which are
One view is that, having sophisticated cognitive capacities, or having the capability to develop these capacities is necessary for a being to have moral status. Since individuals can engage in certain cognitively sophisticated acts, either intellectually or emotionally, they have moral status. But according to scientific facts, redwood trees not only have cognitive susceptibility, but also lack the potentials to develop one. If trees lack the capability to experience
Being able to think and reason should be a primary requirement for deserving dignity and respect. With no ability to think or reason how could an animal even understand that it is being treated differently than other animals. Fukuyama argues this point as well, “Human reason…is pervaded by emotions, and its functioning is in fact facilitated by the latter.” Clearly moral choice cannot exist with out reason but it can also be seen in other feelings such as pride, anger, and shame. Humans are conscious of their actions, in spite of acting on instinct as other animals do. Animals do not contemplate any deeper meaning of life or justify complex mathematical equations or even think about the question ‘why’; Humans, however, do think about those things. It is our conscious thought that sets us apart from any other animal in the world. Yes animals have perception and problem solving abilities, but unlike they are not able to understand complex knowledge based concepts, although they can solve problems within their normal parameters. Every animal on the planet should have the ability to solve problems but only to a certain extent, the extent of survival. When a situation becomes a matter of life or death animals must to be able to learn to live. Survival of the fittest has ultimately
Societies such as the United States score moderately low (40) on Power Distance, which in relation to Individualism, accepts that everyone is different, and therefore, unequal. Yet, because of low restraint, people in American society feel at liberty to debate status symbols. Again, this relates to the idea of terrestrial fulfillment, as in combating the views of soul conflicts, scientific humanism deals with actual human activities
Such a simple revelation of similarity between species powered multiple rights revolutions for beings that we originally thought to be “too different” or inferior to us. As Gay rights, Women’s rights, and Animal rights were born out of scientific logic and reasoning our moral arc began to increase. Shermer examines and defines the link between humanity and science by introducing the notion that we all come into this world with some sort of moral compass, inherently already knowing basic rights from wrongs. However, Shermer makes it clear that how we control our moral compass comes from how we are “nurtured”. The levels of guilt that we feel for violating certain social obligations can and will vary depending on the environment that we are raised in .This leads Shermer into introducing the most simple and effective way of measuring morality in an action. Shermer defines an action as being morally correct only if the action increases an individual’s chances of survival and flourishing. The idea is to stretch the boundaries of the moral sphere with the help of science and its tools of reason. He then goes on to state how we would not be as far as we are in the progression of morality today if
Is he then saying that the animal’s interest in preserving its life should not be regarded as highly as the utility we derive from the animal’s death, as long as the animal does not suffer? It seems that to be morally consistent, Singer should similarly oppose the killing of animals, not just the deliberate causation of their suffering. Singer’s argument is certainly persuasive. However, his argument only goes so far as to say that speciesism is arbitrary and we should replace one arbitrary measure with another – that of sentience. I think that more needs to be done to show why sentience, not any other quality, should be the defining characteristic for moral consideration.
In his essay, The Ethics of Respect for Nature, Paul Taylor presents his argument for a deontological, biocentric egalitarian attitude toward nature based on the conviction that all living things possess equal intrinsic value and are worthy of the same moral consideration. Taylor offers four main premises to support his position. (1) Humans are members of the “Earth’s community of life” in the same capacity that nonhuman members are. (2) All species exist as a “complex web of interconnected elements” which are dependent upon one another for their well-being. (3) Individual organisms are “teleological centers of life” which possess a good of their own and a unique way in which to pursue it. (4) The concept that humans are superior to other species is an unsupported anthropocentric bias.