For many years, people assumed that humans are significantly different from other species, which made them somewhat superior. However, research on animal behavior, especially our closest relatives, the apes has led to new discoveries that show many similarities between human and animals. Some of these similarities have questioned the uniqueness of humans and have led to debates not only among scientists but in the public as well. Frans de Waal, a renowned primatologist and the author of The Ape and the Sushi Master, is among the scientists that claim animals and humans are quite similar. The main focus of his book is to show that culture is not exclusive to humans. De Waal was not the first scientist to propose the theory that animals have culture nonetheless; it was received with a lot of enmity. He attributes this to the fear of losing the qualities that make humans special. Claims of language in apes became so threating that animal research was almost banned. According to de Waal, “attempts of censorship do reveal just how much insecurity surrounds human uniqueness”. (32) In an attempt to support his argument, he addresses the controversial issue of morality in animals. Morality is considered a cultural aspect and therefore people often use cultural biases in decision making. Dan Kahan, a psychologist, referred to this as cultural cognition, which “refers to the tendency of individuals to conform their beliefs about disputed matters of fact to values that define their cultural identities”. Subsequently, theories on morality depend on the perspective of the scientists who carry out the research. De Waal supports his theory by analyzing aspects of morality in humans and comparing them to animal behavior.
In a talk video on TED...
... middle of paper ...
...that human morals are a result of evolutionary tendencies. Based on his study in animal behavior, chimpanzees and bonobos in particular, he records evidence of moral behavior in chimpanzees. A significant point that de Waal makes if that animals have not developed to morality to the level exhibited in humans. They do however exhibit behaviors that make up the roots of morality. “Are animals moral? Let us simply say they occupy several floors of the tower of morality” (181). On the contrary, scientists against morality in animals argue that the alleged moral behaviors in animals are due to anthropomorphism and that morality results from religion. The question of morality in animals will most likely remain a complex and controversial question even with increase in research. This is because the argument is based on perspective which is influenced by cultural biases.
Chapter one of “The Bonobo And The Atheist” was rather interesting. De Waal focusing primarily on chimps studied morality. Now what is morality? Morality in short is having an understanding of right and wrong. Human beings have an understanding of right and wrong due to our beliefs and our teachings growing up. De Waal explains animals and humans do not share these common beliefs and he focuses his area of study on perhaps why they show signs of morality much like humans do. Humans are usually shaped around their specific religion, they have an understanding of god and the commandments so on and so forth. This is the case for me because I grew up in a very traditional roman catholic family. From a very young age I was forced to go to church
From that opinion, one may assert that morals themselves are not absolute. Still, deontological moral theory provides a strong base for making correct decisions. There are few realistic exceptions to the theory and one can easily notice when an exception is to be made. So, knowing that deontology creates a valuable beginning for a strong moral theory, one can simply interpret the theory less strictly.
There has been an age long debate to whether or not primates have culture. This is based on the idea that primates may have certain behaviors that our taught rather than already being programmed in their minds biologically. Some would argue that a certain action that a primate does wouldn’t necessarily be something that primate was born knowing; but others would argue that it was something that was something they knew in their subconscious mind. Notable arguments that would be in favor of culture in primates would include their use of tools, how a primate eats, and how they interact; arguments against the theory of culture in primates would proclaim that a primate’s habits are determined biologically and not affected by outside sources.
Human morality could have clearly grown out of primate sociality. Though being morally aware may be a uniquely human trait, many species such as primates, dogs and ants, all known for living in a group, have been known to exhibit pre-moral sentiments. Concepts such as attachment, bonding, empathy, and
In Jeannette Walls’ novel Half Broke Horses, the main character Lily Casey Smith faces many moral convictions throughout the story; from traveling all on her own at a young age while encountering all the obstacles she did, as well as making her trek to a new location. She never backed down and molded to what people wanted her to. Lily Casey was a dedicated woman and was going to do what she thought was right no matter what the consequences were. Lily made it very clear when she believed what she was doing was for the best, “You deputies may think you run Yavapai Country, but I run my classroom, and I’ll discipline wayward kids as I see fit . Got it?” ( Wall 180). This is a perfect example of Lily 's strength, she stood up to people because
Do animals have rights and moral standing? I believe that they do. Peter Carruthers does not. He is completely against the moral standing of animals. I will be explaining his views, and arguing against them showing why animals should have moral standing.
This week, we look at articles made by Peter Singer and Tom Regan, both of which concentrate on each living creature's sound judgment capability. Singers's debate is enclosed through an utilitarian view, while Regan's is Kantian. However exceptional, the two debate showed credible support for each living creature's sound judgment capability and affected them to falter between my emotions on the point. Shockingly, I found a couple of imperfections with each contention and in this way, my position on each living creature's good judgment capability continues as some time as of late. In "The Animal Liberation Movement," Peter Singer clears up that creatures legitimize measure up to thought of interests, which gathers that they legitimize a relative
Why is incest deplorable amongst humans, but not for dogs? What makes it acceptable for a man to kill a deer, but wrong if he kills another man? Why do these lines get drawn between humans and animals? David Hume has an answer to these questions. Though many philosophers, like Saint Augustine, argue that humans are morally different from animals because of their capability to reason, Hume states that it is passion and sentiment that determines morality. In his book, Treatise with Human Nature, Hume claims that vice and virtue stems from the pleasure or pain we, mankind, feel in response to an action not from the facts that we observe (Hume, 218). Hume uses logic to separate morality into a dichotomy of fact and value, making it clear that the only reasonable way to think of the ethics of morality is to understand that it is driven by passion, as opposed to reason (Angeles, 95). In this essay I will layout Hume's position on morality and defining ambiguous terms on the way. After Hume's argument is well established, I will then precede to illustrate why it is convincing and defend his thesis against some common objections.
In his lecture, primatologist Robert Sapolsky explains the uniqueness of humans as well as our similarities to other primates. In doing so, he broke it down into six points of interest: aggression, theory of mind, the golden rule, empathy, pleasure in anticipation and gratification postponement, and lastly, culture. Professor Sapolsky approaches each point with interesting fact-based examples thus allowing me to gain insight on humans and other primates. Sapolsky’s knowledge of primates along with his scientific background allows him to make a clear argument that one cannot simply ignore.
We change the power on the microscope to look at Rollin's argument for a sentientist approach. With this view, the moral category includes all sentient beings, not just human beings. Rollins believes that any being possessing an awareness of the senses that does not involve thought or perception has intrinsic value and is an end-in-themselves. He contends that animal interests must also be considered when determining our environmental oblig...
In this essay, I will discuss and define both speciesism and moral individualism in Paola Cavalieri’s book, The Animal Question. Additionally, I will provide my opinion on which is the strongest argument for speciesism and why I still disagree with it. Speciesism is the belief that humans are inherently superior to all other animals, solely based on their species membership. This widely held belief is used to justify the blatant discrimination of nonhuman animals, resulting in a lack of moral rights and the exploitation of defenseless beings. This view, that humans are of special moral status, is constantly attempted to be rationalized in various ways.
I will first look at the views of Peter Singer, who is a utilitarian. A
Before this week’s lesson, I had never given any consideration to whether or not nonhuman animals had any moral standing. Prior to this class, if asked whether I thought they did or not, I most likely would have said that I do not feel they do; however, after serious consideration, I would now have to say that I do think that nonhuman animals have moral standing. At least some of them do.
A moral issue is generally considered to be one which arises from the need to take another person's interests into consideration. However, by saying another person's interests this seems to rule out the interests of animals from the moral debate. Although many people do value animals, there are still others who consider animals as no more than a source of food. It could be argued that our primary moral obligations towards those people who value animals includes secondary obligations towards the animals they value. The problem then is that we have no secondary obligations towards those animals which are not valued by people. Consequently those animals would have no moral rights. Despite that argument we still feel that it is morally wrong to inflict certain actions, such as torture, on animals. We should, therefore, consider the possibility that animals do have moral rights. If we change the initial statement to read 'a moral issue is one which arises from the need to take another living being's interests into consideration' we can then consider what gives a living being moral rights, and what moral difference there is between animals and humans.
[Common ground]Some believe that all animals and humans should have equal consideration in all matters because animals have shown to be as intelligent as some human beings. [Destabilizing condition] While they do have much in common, like the necessity of food, water, and shelter, animals and humans have one distinct difference that should prevent us from erasing the diversity between the species. This essential difference makes it so that humans and animals cannot be compared, and that while they, in theory, should have the same consideration as humans, cannot. [Costs] Impartiality between the two would mean that animals and humans are treated equally in all aspects, which would be unbeneficial to both species. [Resolution] The essential