“Planet of the Nephesh Animals do not contain hominid synonymous souls they receive instead separate acknowledgeable nephesh, (neh'-fesh), Greek for breathing essences from their creator. To encompass a human soul is to subsist with philosophies of aphorisms with emotion. In other words humans develop moral standards to which they live their lives passionately. Animals do not. Furthermore, animals are not cognizant they lack in the ability to process language, lack self-awareness, and do not exhibit theory of mind and there by cannot be permitted human rights. However, because humans do boast moral depths we are obligated to postulate that animals entertain a manner of soul. Therefore animals merit fair and ethical treatment as living …show more content…
Megan, the chimp subject for self-awareness, had a mirror placed in her holding pen for a set time. After this time Megan received a red spot on her forehead and was placed back in the holding pen where she in fact “scratched at the spot” (Wynne, p.50). To others Megan’s scratching proved a conscious awareness. To contradict the theory Robert Epstein, Robert Lanza and B.F. Skinner “demonstrated that, with training even pigeons can pass Gallup’s mirror test” (Wynne). Again animals can be trained to give conditioned responses. The third area of the study focused on theory of mind “I am not the only conscious being. Others are conscious and I take this into account in my dealings with them” (Wynne, …show more content…
To sum up the experiment one ape named Sheba could not tell a difference between two separate trainers and witch one held the food. Time and again without training Sheba was unable to see two different conscious people with different thoughts and actions. Thus proving Sheba did not encompass theory of mind. The great apes study exhibited similarities between human and animals. The great apes project showed that animal consciousness is separate from human morality. Granted there are “parallels to human conscious cognitions” there is not enough supportive research, even from dolphins, to “support the connections to theory of mind” (Allen, p.52).
Therefore as the research stands animal nephesh is not comparable on a complex level to humans and thusly should only be allotted professional standards of conduct. According to Tibor Machan the R. C. Hoiles chair of business ethics at the Argyros School of Business and Economics at Chapman University, animals “If they had such rights, they would, among other things, have to be held accountable for killing or maiming fellow animals in the wilds”
Mitchell, R. W. (1992). Developing concepts in infancy: Animals, self-perception, and two theories of mirror self-recognition. Psychological Inquiry, 3(2), 127-130. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0302_9
This book presents the relationship between human and animal behaviors and the behavior that is now created by our modern day society. The mind has two main parts. There is the conscious mind and the unconscious mind. The unconscious mind is the better half, yet it is potentially threatening; therefore, the conscious mind is aware at all times. The unconscious mind influences your behavior in many ways. Pi experiences both of these minds. Pi is consciously planning his survival and how he was going to spend his food, so he didn’t run out. His conscious mind contributed to Pi surviving at sea. Consequently, when Pi`s father fed a goat to a tiger to prove a point, he was unaware that this event changed his personality brutally. He became more
The skills typically required to development a theory of mind are minimal. It is important that a child first acquires the ability to view oneself and others as intentional agents, or individuals who cause things to happen to reach a desired goal, so that they can then be able to take the perspective of others and understand what their intentions are (Bjorklund, p.200). Now, although infants are not born with these abilities, they do develop them over time. How children come to appreciate that other people have beliefs and desires, often different from their own, that motivate their behavior, is assessed through what is known as the false-b...
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
“The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality.”(Arthur Schopenhauer)
...ng a theory of mind plays for an effective social life.’ (Smith and Stevens 2002). Theory of mind has also enabled numerous evolutionary psychologists to attempt to understand and analyse the social behaviour and interactions of other species on the planet, such as apes and chimpanzees, which in itself is surely the essence of the discipline.
Leslie, A. M. 1987. Pretense and representation: The origins of" theory of mind.” Psychological review, 94 (4), p. 412
Many countries around the world agree on two basic rights, the right to liberty and the right to ones own life. Outside of these most basic human and civil rights, what do we deserve, and do these rights apply to animals as well? Human rights worldwide need to be increased and an effort made to improve lives. We must also acknowledge that “just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do other creatures” (Dalai Lama). Animals are just as capable of suffering as we are, and an effort should be made to increase their rights. Governments around the world should establish special rights that ensure the advancement and end of suffering of all sentient creatures, both human and non-human. Everyone and everything should be given the same chance to flourish and live.
Cohen, Jon. "Thinking Like A Chimpanzee." Smithsonian 41.5 (2010): 50. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
Numerous speculations have been advanced to clarify the relationship between what we call your mind and your brain. They incorporate Jackson and Nagel 's journey to oppose recognizing what we call 'mental
Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992. Call Number: HV4711.A5751992. Morris, Richard Knowles, and Michael W. Fox, eds. On the Fifth Day, Animal Rights. and Human Ethics.
It is nearly impossible to say whether non-human animals are intelligent. Most studies, in this field of psychology, were carried out on primates, and it is thought that these animals are naturally superior. It seems most behaviour in the research discussed in this essay can be explained through association learning, therefore not actually a result of intelligence. It is difficult to falsify whether animals are intelligent or not because, although they are able to solve problems they only show some aspects to suggest ToM.
... concept. An animal cannot follow our rules of morality, “Perhaps most crucially, what other species can be held morally accontable” (Scully 44). As a race humans must be humane to those that cannot grasp the concept. Animals do not posess human rights but they posess the right to welfare and proper treatment by their handlers.
In society today there has been a lot of talk about animal intelligence and how they and we interact with them. Many pet owners believe that their pet is intelligent and compassionate, but some people and scientist don’t believe it's true. Well, I believe animals are intelligent and compassionate, but don’t have a sense of awareness of their actions.
Nussbaum, MC 2006, ‘The moral status of animals’, The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 3, pp. 1-6.