Dehumanization In The Beast People

1 I have been studying the traits and dispositions of the lower animals (so-called), and contrasting them with the traits and dispositions of man. I find the result humiliating to me. For it obliges me to renounce my allegiance to the Darwinian theory of the Ascent of Man from the Lower Animals, since it now seems plain to me that that theory ought to be vacated in favor of a new and truer one, this new and truer one to be named the Descent of Man from the Higher

Mankind is placed at the top of the animal kingdom because of man’s ability to think and reason. Despite this ability, mankind seems incapable of moving past negative emotions and the greatest atrocities: hate, anger, abuse, and murder. For these reasons, some humans question the true nature of mankind. Some argue that humanity is no better than any other vile species and conclude that mankind is only a “beast.” However, as Albert Camus demonstrates in his novel The Stranger, the situation is more complex. Camus utilizes his character Salamano and his dog to demonstrate that humans have to parts. Salamano represents the ideal of a human and his dog represents that bad -- the part that humanity hates about itself. The novel’s protagonist, Meursault

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.

The statement that can best be made about the purpose of The Lowest Animal by Mark Twain is that he believes that mankind is immoral, vulgar, wasteful, vengeful, discriminatory; cruel, greed, and obscene. This is because he has a moral sense and conscience despite this, doesn’t make our decisions right and properly. However, contrast with Mark Twain’s thesis; I think human beings are not that all bad and not the lowest animal, but perhaps not the highest animal either.

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.

What is it that makes someone inhuman rather than human? We humans, have evolved into the beings that we are today, how we look, how we think, and how we act, along with our desires; are all parts of what makes us human. When something is described as inhuman, it is usually lacking those qualities. Human and inhuman in relation to the novel, are shown through Moreau’s attempts to erase the divide between animal and man. Creating man from animals is Moreau’s way of  having his favorite version of humans at the forefront. The beasts, would be able to speak and act like humans without some of the parts that make a human, human their desires and mental capacity are very limited to the necessities. He believes, that experimenting on the animals and having them be generally human, without any of their basic animal instincts, will in fact solidify them as man. When in

Writing Task One Elie Wiesel uses metaphor and simile to demonstrate that dehumanization causes severe changes, mental and physical, in the victims. In chapter 4 Wiesel demonstrates how dehumanization makes the prisoners lose their own identity (Wiesel pg.49). This quote demonstrates how there getting treated like cattle or merch, there loss of identity is replaced with that of an animal or groceries. “Each one began to chose the men that they liked: you...you...

Dehumanization can be thought of as the process of losing one’s humanity. It can further be thought of as a way to make one’s “pain and [...] individuality irrelevant” (Garvey, 141). Dr. Moreau wanted to manufacture more humans through the trampling over of the animalism in the animals he experimented on. In order to succeed in his plans, Dr. Moreau must devoid himself of all natural, human, empathy.

In Wells’s The Island of Doctor Moreau, which will be referred to as TIODM, the Beast Folk are forced to live under a regime created by Dr. Moreau to control their habits. These habits include walking on four legs, eating meat, and attacking men. Perhaps the most chilling scene of the entire novel is set in the cave of the abused former beasts turned into humanesque simpletons. The main character, Prendick, follows one of them, the Ape Man, back to their hovel, initiating himself into their world. “‘Not to chase other Men; that is the Law. Are we not Men? Not to eat Flesh or Fish; that is the Law. Are we not Men” chant the mutilations of nature, illustrating the vicious control that Moreau keeps upon his creations (75). Moreau focuses his Godlike

The Island of Dr. Moreau, by H.G. Wells is focused around a man fascinated with the difference between animal and man. Dr. Moreau, a man surely seen as a mad scientist to the outside world, and maybe correctly. Dr. Moreau is determined to establish a sustainable human population, but all he has on his secluded island, are a bunch of beasts. Although, this appears to be a problem, he still works toward his goal, in rather experimental stages.

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

One of the most controversial topics in modern philosophy revolves around the idea of non-human animals being considered human people. Controversy over what makes up an actual person has been long debated. However, society deems it as a set of characteristics. The average person normally does not realize how complicated a question this is, and in fact many scientists, philosophers, and individuals will side differently on this specific topic. I personally do not believe that animals are capable of being human people, but throughout this argumentative paper I will address critical views presented from multiple philosophers on why this seems to be the case.

Reading Mark Twain observation from his experiments has opened my eyes in seeing human differently. There is clearly a difference between human behavior and animal behavior. Humans think they are superior when it comes to animals. Maybe it because humans can speak. Unfortunately, this is not the case, animals were here long before man was here making them the higher

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

Montaigne presents this argument about culture’s creation of a bias lens in Of Cannibals. The reader is forced to acknowledge that a view of barbarism stems from what is unfamiliar. Cannibalism is not a norm of the reader’s culture, and as such the reader is forced to question why cannibalism appears so barbaric when compared with the atrocities of their own culture. The familiarity of the evil that is known is what makes that evil appear less barbaric. In reality, and as Montaigne helps his reader to see, the forms of torture that are familiar to the reader are no less indecent than the cannibalistic society, but the culture that practices cannibalism seems uncivilized because to the reader because cannibalism is something taboo in their culture. Societal structures and norm create a