Human Diversity By Flai Lama Summary

His concern forms at the center of all human values, each individual is unique with potentials differentiating us between one another (135). The Dalai Lama follows up with a scenario where a family is unable to conceive so they use this new found knowledge to create a child or make an identical copy of another human being through cloning (135-136). One consequence he points out as a result of this new technology “is their effect on the continuation of our species” through the gene pool (Dalai Lama 136). What happens to our society when diversity necessary for evolution has been

In “Thinking About Diversity”, Frank H. Wu details about his experiences as an Asian American. Wu says that, “some non-Asian students do, indeed, assume that I am gifted with mathematical, scientific, or computer-programming talents solely on account of my race” (Wu, 147), this concept shows the overview picture of Asians, but this does not apply to every Asians. The mathematic, science or computer programming is a universal subject that most industrialized places like Asia teach to students. Most Asian immigrants are familiar with those subjects because they already learn it back home and are able to do well on them, not because of a race. A race cannot provide a special intelligent to people, it’s just a different classify groups of people.

Every culture ever known has operated under a system of values. Many varied on exact principles, but most applied the idea of Natural Law. Or, as C.S. Lewis would refer to it in his Abolition of Man, the Tao. In this particular book Lewis discusses the implications that would follow could man overcome this basic value system that has been in place since the development of rational thought. However, paradoxical as his opinion may seem, he holds that to step beyond the Tao is to plunge into nothingness. Simply put, it is his claim that to destroy, or even fundamentally change, man’s basic value system is to destroy man himself.

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.

Despite mankind’s inventiveness and interior capacities for almost every wonderful field of study, it wholly compromises its principles and remains dishonest. More than seven billion people compose humanity’s seemingly intangible collective, each one of whom is an individual with a separate set of principles and identities. However, most of mankind is dedicated to the uniform desire to advance their own interests. Moral compromise and the inherited sense of self-interest have prevented any true harmonic pattern in society, and have caused problems that exist and dominate us at the present time. If society wholly refused to compromise its principles for the sake of self-interest, there would be a major change in our world affairs. However, self-indulgence

By opening the movie Gattaca with quotations from Willard Gaylin and Ecclesiastes, director Andrew Niccol invites us to ponder the tension between science and religion with regard to the ethics of genetic engineering. This tension is further sustained through the complex relationship of the main protagonists Vincent and Eugene, who must ultimately conquer their own physical limitations in order to find ``God''.

Many people of 20th century though, turned for truth in the logic of science. It had made many things simpler for them and had offered them a better standard of living. Even so, as Cat’s Cradle demonstrates, their is both a good and evil side to science. When it is used with careless negligence, the results of manipulating nature can be formidable. It is a tool, and must be used with respect for others. Because of this, there is ultimately a limit to the truth many people search for in this field; although we can advance through science and exploration, it doesn’t take into account human ethics and morals. It therefore doesn’t offer meaning, and it doesn’t offer happiness. One must search for those realizations from

When thinking about morality, it is necessary to consider how aspects from both nature and nurture, along with free will, may form ones moral beliefs and dictate ones moral actions. To understand how moral beliefs as well as actions formulate and operate within individuals and societies, it is imperative that a general definition of morality is laid out. Morality, then, can be defined as ones principles regarding what is right and wrong, good or bad. Although an individual may hold moral beliefs, it is not always the case that moral actions follow. Therefore, in this essay I aim to provide an explanation that clarifies the two and in doing so I also hope to further the notion that one’s moral framework is a product of all three factors; nature, nurture, and free will. The first part of this essay will flush out what exactly morality it and how it manifests similarly across individuals and differently across individuals. Contrariwise, I will then explain how morality manifests similarly across societies and differently across societies. Alongside presenting the information in this order, I will trace morality back to primordial times to showcase how morality has evolved and developed since then, not only from a nature-based standpoint, but also from a

The film condemns the false premises of genetic engineering and eugenics that aim to eradicate all ‘undesirable’ traits and imperfections. In this ‘manicured’ world, human passions still seek liberation; people quietly sabotage the rules, loyalty and love continue and individuality survives. The human sprit it suggest remains strong, and can act as a counterbalance to the negative tendencies of an oppressive, controlling society where uncontrolled technology is dangerous, but also

As witnessed in our present day , and in the history of humanity bioethics is something introduced to society. From emerging the practices in medicine and biology. One case that indicated in the the history is the Nazi human experimentation that included the exploratory of medicine on the minority of jews , jehovah witnesses , and other minority groups in which refused to assimilate with the germans .

The debate on human nature between Mencius and Xunzi has been one that is longstanding - both views have compelling claims to support either statement. In this essay, we will discover the main aims of their philosophy of morality to determine what deductions the two philosophers have gathered about humans, and later, their implications on society. For starters, we see that Mencius advocates that human nature is has the inborn capacity for goodness. However, it can be easily misconstrued as human nature is innately good, this false claim which easily contradicts with many examples of heinous acts we see in the past and today. By assuming that we have this inborn tendency for goodness, Mencius claims that we have spontaneous feelings of compassion when we see someone in need of help (Mencius 6A6), and that what follows is altruism that stems from natural obligation. In addition to that, he contends that cultivation of our innate goodness, otherwise known as the four sprouts (ren, li, yi, zhi – benevolence, propriety, righteousness and

Throughout history morality has been a topic of intense debate. Innumerable thinkers have devoted immense amounts of time and energy to the formulation of various ethical theories intended to assist humans in their daily lives. These theories set out guidelines which help to determine the rightness or wrongness of any given action and can therefore illuminate which choice would be morally beneficial. And while many of these theories differ substantially, most have at least one common underlying principle, namely that humans deserve to be treated with a certain level of respect. This idea comes from the belief that all humans have interests which are significant enough to be considered, hence no one should impede another

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

From the very beginning of human civilization, the driving force behind humanity’s ostensibly incomparable will to not only survive, but to thrive, is based upon one factor: human nature. But what is human nature? According to Karl Marx, human nature is the consistent dependency humans have on one another rather than the popular capitalist belief that the unyielding desire for wealth and material goods is what motivates humans; however, true human nature lies somewhere in-between.

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