1) “A jackal doesn’t understand remorse,” (Szymborska). Why Not? From what de Waal says, do you think a chimp experiences remorse/guilt? What evidence would we have for accepting or rejecting that claim? What enables typical adult humans to experience guilt while most/all other animals do not?
In Szymborska’s “In Praise of Feeling Bad About Yourself,” the line, “A jackal doesn’t understand remorse.” makes a poignant statement that resonates in the study of ethics, with blame in particular. Remorse is similar to guilt, which is a kind of response (e.g. emotion or feeling) of a person who is blameworthy. A jackal cannot be blameworthy because it is not a person capable of being accountable.
A jackal is not a person capable of being
…show more content…
One expects an adult human to know that their child is screaming in distress because he or she is stuck without having experienced it; however, that is not the case with all animals. To argue that a jackal may actually know that its child is in distress because it is stuck would require the idea of the jackal understanding the environment and/or has experienced being stuck itself, rendering the jackal with an understanding for the distress. The final criterion for being fully empathic is the ability to adopt the perspective of another fully. To put oneself into another 's perspective, and see things as they do. Animals cannot fully adopt another’s perspective, this disqualifies a jackal from having empathy, or accountability; consequently, from Szymborska’s view will ultimately leave it without remorse. On one hand there is the Szymborska view of animals, notably jackals being unremorseful, however, on the other there is the compelling case that De Waal presents in “The Tower of Morality,” that although a chimp may not possess morality, it may actually be able to experience some type remorse albeit not the same as an adult human would.
Considering the three “building blocks” of morality according to De Waal, humans and animals share the first two, moral sentiments, and social pressure. When evaluating the final level, humans and apes do not share judgement and reasoning. As
Guilt is an emotion that affects everyone in a different way. In The Yellow Birds, by Kevin Powers, John Bartle, one of the main characters, struggles with guilt over the death of his friend Murph. It is not until the end of the book, the reader discovers the horrific truth about Murph’s death and why Bartle feels so guilty. Bartle had a good moral compass at the start of the book; somewhere he went off his righteous path of thinking through his decisions. Although Bartle is a good person, he is lead to make terrible decisions that ultimately leading to his demise. Bartle’s emotions caused him to make atrocious decisions that happen to have damaging consequences to his decisions and his actions.
Many things do have feelings when you think they don't have feelings. Many things are not exactly what it seems. Animals have many similarities and differences to humans. Starting with the story the pod.
I am going to argue in support of Peter Singer’s claims against speciesism. It is right to claim that human suffering and animal suffering should be given equal considerations. Both humans and nonhuman species suffer both physically and emotionally and both deserve equal considerations on the basis of morality.
Within this essay, we will study more in depth the behavioral as well as physical traits of two primates at a zoo from their interaction with their peers to their place in the group. This observation would enable us to further understand the possible existing correlation between humans and primates. First, I studied a female chimpanzee with her baby, and then, a dominant male gorilla, in San Francisco Zoo at about noon, on May 23, 2015, for an hour each. Even though they share some similarities such as having a large brain, living for a long time, and being bored in their enclosure, they are still different; when gorillas are the largest, chimpanzees are the smartest. In fact, chimps use tools to catch food, they would not be able to reach
The question of the correct ethical treatment of animals has been a topic of many heated debates. The basis of this discussion arises numerous premises that justifies the treatment of animals. Whether animal do in fact have a sentient? And what is distinctive about humanity such that humans are thought to have moral status and non-human do not? Providing an answer to the correct ethical treatment of animals has become increasingly paramount among society as well as philosophers.
The first example of guilt in the novel is Lieutenant Jimmy Cross. When Cross is introduced in the novel, we learn about the stone that a girl he was in love with gave him. He carries the stone around everywhere and even puts it in his mouth, until one day when one of his men named Ted Lavender was shot
GUILT is an emotion one gets when he/she believes or discovers that he/she did a wrong deed and valuated his/her standard social, moral or penal code ( Chaplin, 1975). The intensity of guilt varies from one person to another. When some individuals survive a horrific event, they get this overwhelming feeling of guilt and blame themselves for surviving the abominable situation that others did not survive. This state of mind is a mental condition and is sometimes termed as imagined guilt. It may be found in survivors of holocausts, natural disasters, mass murder and pandemics e.g. the 9/11 Oklahoma City bombings. While this guilt might not be experienced by everyone, it a research based
authors use the concept of guilt to imply the idea that guilt has the capabilities to
In “Speciesism and Moral Status”, Peter Singers argument is that when it comes to the value of life, we should not discriminate in regards to species, and cognitive ability should play some role in moral status. In comparison to humans with “profound mental disabilities” (Singer 569), the use of the gorilla Koko’s higher IQ score, not needing constant supervision, or border collies being able to provide useful work to society, serves as a strong logos appeal regarding the relationship between cognitive ability and moral status. Singer is effectively able to support his claims by continuously referencing respected philosophers and individuals such as Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham, and even Pope John Paul II. Validity and integrity are very much solidified in Singers article with the use of counter arguments as well as alternate views to his own arguments. The structure and information Singer provides is clear and organized, and does not leave his audience confused due to the strong use of factual, relevant support of his argument.
Human morality is a product of evolution by heritable variation and natural selection. It is fully part of the natural world but is none the worse for that – on the contrary. In the last sentence of On the Origin of Species, Darwin states that “there is grandeur in this view of life… on which endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.” The beautiful and wonderful forms include true moral agents who respond to real moral facts and who form a natural moral community. Their existence contributes to the grandeur of Darwin’s evolutionary view of life.
Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this
In his article “All Animals Are Equal,” Peter Singer discusses the widely-held belief that, generally speaking, there is no more inequality in the world, because all groups of formerly oppressed humans are now liberated. However, it often goes without notice that there are groups of nonhuman animals that continue to face unequal treatment, such as those that are consumed or used as scientific test subjects. Singer’s article criticizes the belief that because humans are generally more intelligent than nonhuman animals, then all humans are superior to all nonhuman animals. Singer argues that intelligence is an arbitrary trait to base the separation of humans and nonhumans, and declares that the only trait that one can logically base moral value is the capacity to have interests, which is determined by a creature’s ability to suffer. Singer explains that in order to stay consistent with the basic principle of equality, anything that has the capacity to suffer ought to have its needs and interests recognized, just as humans’ needs and interests are currently recognized through what he calls “equal consideration.” In this paper, I will explain Singer’s notion of equal consideration as the only relevant sense of equality and why it applies to the rights of both human and nonhuman species that are
Research by Yamamoto, Humle and Tanaka in 2009 concluded that chimpanzees show altruism only when prompted or pressured rather than voluntarily [5]. This particular empirical research challenges the evidence proposed by prior researchers and tests the limits of chimpanzee’s altruistic nature. Using colour-coded tokens, one of which allowed for a partner to share the reward with the test subject and one of which gave the test subject all of the reward, several chimps were tested as to their response. Results showed a tendency for the chimpanzee to take the prosocial option in situations both with and without peer pressure. Abnormally results showed that pressure or harassment from partners reduced the chimpanzee’s inclination to take the prosocial option. Although these results challenge prior research [5] they are limited as they are not conclusive and raise questions of their own to reach a complete understanding. These research results are significant in challenging an already established understanding of chimpanzee’s altruistic traits and acts as a good contrast to other references. This resource stands out as it does not make conclusive statements out of abnormal results but rather opens up a reader’s opinion and presents issues further
Third, Singer states that, “apes, monkeys, dogs, cats, rats, and other animals are more aware of what is happening to them, more self‐directing, and at least as sensitive to pain as a human infant.”(Page 2, Tools for Research) Singer is quick to assign cognitive motives to observed
Frans de Waal begins his argument by first stating the question as to whether or not a human’s moral actions originated from the psychological and behavioral nature of our evolutionary ancestors. He concludes this thought by saying that our moral actions do, in fact, originate from the psychological and behavioral nature of our evolutionary ancestors. De Waal further argues that the foundations of human morals are found in the primates of today. They are composed of actions and emotions whose evolutionary role assists us in our social organization and unity. In the beginning pages of his book, De Waal