When psychologists speak about human-nature, it is as if we are no longer apart of human-nature. Human-nature appears to be discussed in the sense of dehumanized, sub-human, animals that are no longer part of nature at all. Is it truly possible that we are so far gone from what we were evolved to be that we no longer have a human-nature (Morton & Postmes, 2011; Fisher, 2012)? Current sociological writing generally avoids the term human-nature and gets by without it (Leahy, 2012). How do we answer this complex question when the two fields who study humans directly no longer use the term? “To all intent and purposes a newborn human baby is helpless. Not only is it physically dependent on older members of the species but is also lacks the behaviour patterns necessary for living in human society. It relies on certain biological drives, such as hunger and on the charity of its elders to satisfy those drives” (Horalambos & Holborn, 2008). This quote sums it up for both psychologists and sociologists, human-nature can only be found in a newborn infant who has not yet learned to be human. Perhaps that is just it, we can learn, human-nature is learning. Does this however answer anything? Can we go up against academic giants and simply tell them that human-nature is learning? Following will be a discussion on the bioethics conceptions of human-nature. This model both have advantages and disadvantages but for the author, come as close to possible to answering the ultimate question, what is human-nature?
To the extent that philosophy and biology have a consensus regarding biological species is the notion that our species fall into an entirely different category of of thing, metaphysically speaking, to chemical elements (Ereshefsky, 2008). An...
... middle of paper ...
...of David Hull's (1986) work that there might be a respectable notion of human nature, but he was rightly troubled when human nature was put to work in ethical and political debate. So what can be concluded about human-nature in bioethics? It can be concluded that genetics and evolution plays a role in the development of traits. However, ultimately, bioethics is is micro sub-field in a variety of hundreds of sub-fields that could tackle the question of human-nature. What can be concluded with this paper then is that bioethics has a point, but we need to hear from the other sub-fields on the matter before a conclusion, if any can be found, is to be made. The matter then remains unsolved, and will continue to remain unsolved, but understanding some of the specific sub-fields such as bioethics is one step in the right path in understanding the complexity of human-nature.
In the essay "Ethics in the New Genetics" by the Dalai Lama, the author states that before biogenetics may continue human beings must hold with them a "moral compass" that will protect all human beings from their fundamental characteristics to be taken away; the Dalai Lama hopes this will create more ethical decisions in the future. Similarly, in "Human Dignity" by Francis Fukuyama, the author examines the rise of human genetics and how it is going down a path that does not consider human essence, or in his words Factor X, as a legitimate attribute to all human beings as these biogenetics continue. The rise of biogenetics will create an unfair advantage to many, including farmers who will find that they must depend entirely on biotech companies
across all of our written history have discovered the importance of knowing human nature. Human nature is responsible for our definitions of abstract concepts that are surprisingly universal across the western world like justice, equity, and law. Human nature must also be carefully studied in an effort to understand, obtain, or maintain power within society. Finally, human nature must also be carefully understood so as to protect it from being manipulated and to understand its place in society.
Holtug, Nils. “Does Justice Require Genetic Enhancements?” Journal of Medical Ethics 25.2 (April 1999): 137-143.
Savulescu, Julian. “Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Human Beings.” Readings in the Philosophy of Technology. Ed. David Kaplan. 2nd ed. Lanham: Roman & Littlefield, 2009. 417-430.
Humans are animals. Survival is a basic need; however, surviving is not our only goal in life anymore. (G. Williams, 97-102) Because of our advanced technology, we can choose not only how we survive, but the extent of our quality of life. Surviving is only the bare minimum. One of the very things that is human is the power of decision- mainly, the power of choice. Human nature, or characteristics that make us human, is defined in this context as being able to make decisions, right or wrong. Decisions that best suit us are the driving power of what makes humans human. They can range from what jacket to wear to having kids and, tying into this argument, if euthanasia is right in the given situation.
defends the argument that humans are not solely defined by their nature or nurture, but by both. The
Theories of human nature, as the term would ever so subtly suggest, are at best only individual assertions of the fundamental and intrinsic compositions of mankind, and should be taken as such. Indeed it can be said that these assertions are both many and widespread, and yet too it can be said that there are a select few assertions of the nature of man that rise above others when measured by historical persistence, renown, and overall applicability. These eclectic discourses on the true nature of man have often figured largely in theories of political science, typically functioning as foundational structures to broader claims and arguments. The diversification of these ideological assertions, then, would explain the existence of varying theories
The Holocaust is a traumatic history. About six millions of Jews got killed during this period of time. Holocaust is a history of anti-Semitism in Europe, anti-Semitism gained their strength after World War One, Germany had lost the war, so the German people blame the Jews for losing the war, and the Jews became the scapegoat. So Anne Frank is one of those Jews who got discriminate during the Holocaust. She went to hiding with her family, and the diary she wrote during her hiding time remained after she got killed in the camp. Her diary was published after then, and in her diary she had state it “Despite everything, I believe that people are really good at heart.” I totally agree with her in this statement.
The Human Nature Approach to Communication applies to my NCA individual code because the NCA is ethical communication that is fundamental to responsible thinking, decision making, and the development of relationships and communities within and across contexts, cultures, channels, and media. Ethical communication enhances human worth and dignity by fostering responsibility. These guidelines are similar to Human Nature approach as to finding the good in the public process by collaborating on customs, ideas, and rights, promoting, and protecting the good of public decision-making.
was all right, so that he can accept it and move on. The narrator also
The term ‘human nature’ cannot be defined easily. With respect to different approaches, such as psychological and biological sciences, religious studies, politics and ethics, the definitions of human nature include complex characteristics such as human perception, reasoning, behavior, ways of feeling, and thinking. However, in addition to those definitions formulated in the course of actions performed by an individual in the context of his/her socio-political surroundings, it is commonly claimed that there is no fixed definition of human nature, because of our different attitudes to the questions regarding what causes those characteristics to take shape within the processes of human thought, in what exact manner the casual factors work, how
The evolution of technology has been hand in hand with the human subjugation of earth, but the question persists, when does the use of technology go too far? Advances in medical science have tremendously improved the average human lifespan and the quality of life for individuals. Medical science and biology are steadily arriving at new ways to make humans superior by the use of advanced genetic alteration. This ability raises the question of how ought this new technology be used, if at all? The idea of human enhancement is a very general, since humans are constantly “enhancing” themselves through the use of tools. In referring to human enhancement, I am specifically referring to the use of genetic intervention prior to birth. Julian Savulescu in his, “Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement of Human Beings” argues that it is not only permissible to intervene genetically, but is morally obligatory. In this paper I will argue that it is not morally obligatory to genetically intervene, but may be permissible under the criterion established by Savulescu. I plan to argue that the argument used by Savulescu for the obligation to genetically intervene is not the same obligation as the prevention and treatment of disease. The ability for humans to genetically intervene is not sufficient to provide a moral obligation.
The understanding of human nature is the concept that there is a set of inherent distinguishing characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling, and acting that all humans tend to possess (Winkler, 1996). My basic view of human nature correlates with Charles Darwin’s nature vs. nurture theory. Human nature is influenced by both nature and nurture. Nature is all that a man brings with himself into the world, and nurture is every influence that affects him after his birth. An individual’s morals, values, and beliefs are developed from the nurturing aspect of their life. The environment that an individual is raised in creates their human nature. Then they go through life developing more upon their own morals, values, and beliefs. The nature vs. nurture theory is an every changing concept, and I believe that human nature changes for each individual based on their life experiences.
The biological species concept is crucial to understanding both the reason why outmoded anthropocentrism is completely invalidated by Darwinian evolution and why Murdy's modern version is not only compatible with evolutionary theory but is an inevitable evolutionary phenomenon. It is important to no...
Biology is the science of life. Technology uses science to solve problems. Our society has progressed in its understanding of life to the point that we are able to manipulate it on a fundamental level through technology. This has led to profound ethical dilemmas. The movie Gattaca explores some important bioethical issues that are currently the focus of much dispute. The underlying thematic issue presented is the question of the extent to which biologically inherent human potential determines the true potential of a person. Perhaps the most controversial issue in Gattaca is the use of genetic engineering technology in humans to create a more perfect society; this is, essentially, a new method of Eugenics. Another related issue seen in the movie is that of pre-natal selection. Through the use of the same or similar technologies, parents are able to choose the characteristics with which their children will be born.