Is a dolphin a person? Most people would automatically dismiss the question, but in reality, this question can be discussed on a very complex level revealing that the definition of a person is not so black and white. Mary Midgley sets the stage to her narrative by telling the story of a specific court case that she uses as a reference on many occasions. In May of 1977, two men set free two dolphins who were used by the University of Hawaii’s Institute of Marine Biology for experimentation. Kenneth Le Vasseur, one of the men who was standing trial, told how these dolphins were suffering through unfair conditions such as diminishing food rations, isolation from other dolphins, and loss of toys. Based on this information, Le Vasseur and his counsel tried to use the “choice of evils defense” which states that an act, which would typically be considered unacceptable, would be allowed if it would lead to an avoidance of a greater evil or crime against “another”. This defense was rejected on the grounds that the judge declared that a dolphin was not considered to be “another” and instead it should be considered property. Today in our society, it is a common perception that a person or “another” indicates that you must be a human being. Midgley investigates this perception as well as the question of how do we classify what is and what is not a person as well as the moral implications that comes with the title. It is easy to see how the defining of what a person is can be a tedious endeavor. As stated earlier, it is a common perception that in order to be a person one must be a human being. Midgley states, “It is my main business here to point out that this attitude is to crude” (Stephens ed. 316). Midgley brings up that man... ... middle of paper ... ...idgley closes by saying, “It surely cannot be dismissed merely by entrenching the law around the definition of the word ‘person’. We need new thinking, new concepts, and new words, and we are not less capable of providing these than the people were in the 1850s” (320). I view this quote as her way of saying that this standard must be changed and we should be way more capable today to reestablish a correct boundary that protects all groups. This topic is still debated today and I feel as though there will never be a clear cut answer to this question. However, I believe that Midgley has brought up new topics that will challenge common perceptions and ideas that will force others to truly think about the topic and open their minds to new ideas. Works Cited Stephens, William O., ed. The Person. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, 2006. Print.
In conclusion, SeaWorld’s negligence to inform their employees resulted in dead orcas and dead people. Ways the nation can help cease this barbaric culture of watching animals in their sad aquariums is to legislate that imprisoning animals is wrong. The first step to do this is stop paying to see animals in zoos and aquariums. The next step is to write the country’s Congressmen and force them to make imprisoning animals for profit illegal—for Tilikum, other killer whales like him, and in memory of those like Dawn Brancheau. The last step would be to release all the healthy orcas back into the ocean, and the older whales can be released into a marine animal sanctuary where the orcas can live out their remaining days. Aquariums and zoos, like SeaWorld, should be shut down and have their animals released.
In order to define personhood, one must first define a human. A Human can be thought about in two different senses, a moral human sense and a genetic human sense. In a moral sense, humans can be thought of as a person who is a member of the moral community. In a genetic sense, humans are merely any physical being categorized as a being in the human species. From this one can conclude that a person is a human in the moral sense. Furthermore, characteristics of a person must be defined in order to differentiate moral beings from genetic humans.
The utilitarian foundation of argumentation indirectly taken by the producers of this film is one that focuses on the consequences as a means of determining what one ought to do. Utilitarianism argues one ought to commit acts that affects invoke more pleasure than pain or suffering. In the case of The Cove, Richard O’Barry and Louie Psihoyos , as well as other individuals chosen for the task of videotaping and creating the exposé, continually argue a few major points. One area where Richard O’Barry disagrees but the others seem to care little is the fact that dolphins are herded and initially chosen for performance purposes at water parks around the world. This showcases the manner in which many see the positives of entertaining individu...
Imagine being at home enjoying quality time with your family when all of a sudden someone comes into your home and takes you to prison for the rest of your life. No explanation, no warning, and no communication with your family, ever again. In a single moment you have lost your family, your home, and your freedom. That is a very scary thought, yet that is exactly what is happening to killer whales. We, as a society, are going to the ocean, and taking killer whales away from their home, and their families for the sole purpose entertaining us. These beautiful, majestic animals are suffering physically, mentally, emotionally, and they are dying prematurely because of our selfish actions. Mahatma Gandhi said “The greatness of a 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...
There are many important media sources that need to be analyzed, in regard to this debate. The first source that I chose to analyze is the documentary Blackfish. In order to gather an idea of the public representation of Seaworld, I also chose to consider tweets posted by SeaWorld on Twitter. In addition to these tweets, I’ve chosen to review various articles that were published on Seaword’s website. Finally, an article published by the Humane Society offers a counter narrative to the statements by Seaworld. These four sources are a good variety for my paper because they contain many contrasting point of views. These views include two in favor of marine life in captivity and two opposed to marine life in captivity. I have chosen to analyze
In a notable defense of this position, philosopher Mary Anne Warren has proposed the following criteria for "person-hood": 1) consciousness (of objects and events external and or internal to the being), and in particular the capacity to feel pain. 2) reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems) 3) self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control) 4) the capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics. 5) the presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or social, or both. (Taking Sides -Volume 3).
One example of personhood is not having individuality. People are predestined to be in groups, and in each group has gone through some experience to make them not like something. For example, the Betas are to agree that “Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don’t want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse…” (27). The predestination takes away
Millions of people visit Sea World each year (The Fate). They crowd into Shamu Stadium to be entertained by the killer whales as they perform. Their eyes widen, and they sit in awe, as these enormous creatures effortlessly propel themselves out of the water. The children in the audience squeal with delight as the orca’s giant tail sends a wave of ice water over the crowd. But these fast-paced, high-spirited shows hide a darker reality. They are designed to mask the reality of the bare, cold concrete walls that the Orcas are forced to call home. It’s time for people to realize the plight of these mammals. Keeping Orcas in captivity is both harmful and cruel.
Aimlessly walking, side by side, past, behind and in front of entities that contain an unimaginable capacity to store information. Cloaked by the vessle they inhabit; they perform the dance of their day. Each individual molded carefully by their history. Condemed they are, by the string of terms that are webbed by their identiy tags. Like chracters in a movie or a novel, individualas are created by the setting that surrounds them, and are defined and interpreted by the those who look upon them. Each and every individual is a peformer. Who we are is a product of a rhearsed, scheme of human action. We are socailly contructed, individualistic bodies with identities that are constantly in the process of transforming. Daily we play multiple roles, such as mother, son, doctor, patient, teacher and student. Socail scrips intertwine with these roles we play. Cultural intructions provided for how we must ineract and react to the roles of others. As individuals are engaged in their daily activities they internalize learned concepts that can often disfigure the image of a role being performed. Some individuals can be undermined and distorted by the values and performance they choose. The performance they choose to carry can put them in a classification that is below the cultural norm. One term can produce a mass of inimical characteristics fashioned from the past. Ignorant, narrow-minded, immoral, corrupt, sinful, deciteful, and bigoted are identities that are tied to their beilfs; a part of who they are. A part of their identiy that can not be concealed by an means of body modification. As a society we unwitteldly accept Christian hegemony in the United State through which we then actively participate in the encouragement of cultural myths...
ABSTRACT: In Reasons and Persons, Derek Parfit argues for a Reductionist View of personal identity. According to a Reductionist, persons are nothing over and above the existence of certain mental and/or physical states and their various relations. Given this, Parfit believes that facts about personal identity just consist in more particular facts concerning psychological continuity and/or connectedness, and thus that personal identity can be reduced to this continuity and/or connectedness. Parfit is aware that his view of personal identity is contrary to what many people ordinarily think about persons, and thus if his view is correct, many of us have false beliefs about personal identity. Further, since many of our views about morality are based upon our views about personal identity, it follows that we may also have to change our beliefs about morality as well. Parfit, however, thinks that in many cases such changes represent an improvement over our former beliefs and better fit with our considered moral judgments. But instead, I argue that Parfit’s account poses a serious threat to considered moral judgments, and, in particular, that it seriously undermines any substantial notion of moral commitment. As such, even if Parfit is metaphysically correct, I suggest we may have practical reasons, based on our moral concerns, for holding to a more weighty view of the nature of persons.
John F. Crosby in his work, The Selfhood of the Human Person, attempts to provide an advancement in the understanding of the human person. Persons are conscious beings who think and know they are thinking. He claims persons are not merely replaceable objects, but characters who cannot be substituted or owned. Crosby describes personhood as standing in yourself, being an end to yourself, and being anchored in yourself. A feature of personhood is that persons can be conscious of everything in the universe while the universe acts on them. Additionally, personhood means persons exist for their own sake and not for the sake of others. However, persons who are centered in themselves often give of themselves. Persons are incommunicable unlike any other piece of creation. A quality of the incommunicability of persons is action. Aquinas explains person are not acted on but act through themselves.
For centuries man has grappled with the riddle of what it means to be a
Animal rights have unequivocally been a major concern amongst humans for some time now. Animal rights are based on the notion that non-human animals should be allowed to live freely: free from abuse and suffering, as humans are. The extreme issue amongst humans is whether or not non-human animals have the capacity for rationality to deserve such equal consideration. When examining the issue of animal rights, one may have come to question one’s psyche on whether or not animal rights are ethical.
Humans may be one of the most complex species on this earth thus far. We are the only known species who contemplates their existence so deeply and writes novels worth of work on it. But what exactly does it mean to be a human and how is our humanness defined? For centuries philosophers have written countless works on what they believe makes a person truly humane and how we differentiate between those who are “bad” and those who are “good” humans. In a world that is so subjective and that has so many opinions, routes, and options this may be one of the hardest concepts to define.