Human Nature : Humans And Humans

Peter Singer has written many works in support of animal rights. In one of his greatest works Animal Liberation, Singer goes into great depths on how similar in biology animals are to human beings. Another strong point was not only the biological resemblance, but also the behavioral tendencies and traits humans and nonhuman species share. There are two major areas of focus that Singer puts emphasis on that need to be recognized for the purposes of my argument. One focus is this utilitarian approach that only the human species carry: the belief of ethical and morally good behavior should be extended to the consideration of nonhuman species. The second focus that is the basis for my argument is Singer’s argument against a huge human social construct labeled speciesism.

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.

Human beings are considered to be the greatest creations that were given knowledge, skills and power to rule over the entire planet. However, at the same time, their relationship with other animals and its implications in human civilization cannot be denied. Historically, it is proven that for thousands of years, human beings have developed close contact with animals who were their means of living and at the same time often, great companions. Considering the great significance of animals in the lives of human beings, often their relationships were portrayed in literature by authors. It was meant to help the global community to have a clear understanding of the impact that animals have in the lives of human beings which is very much significant.

Throughout history, humans have utilized nonhuman animals for the benefit of mankind. This tendency increased as civilization developed, and presently, necessitated by staggering population growth and technological progress, human use of animals has skyrocketed. We eat them, we breed them, we use them as test subjects. Some people have begun to question the ethics of it all, sparking a debate on animal treatment and whether or not they have rights. In a paper on the subject, Carl Cohen lays out his definition of rights, explains their relationship with obligations, and uses these ideas to present the argument that manifests clearly in his piece’s title, “Why Animals Have No Rights”. THESIS

In Genesis the word of God leads humanity in the direction of self preservation, urging them to procreate, to ”Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 9:1), and to minimize hostility and violence among people. As Freud asserted, “Besides the instinct to preserve living substance and join it into ever larger units, there must exist another, contrary instinct seeking to dissolve those units and bring them back to their primeval, inorganic state” (Freud 77). Genesis exemplifies the struggle between the two opposing human instincts, with God acting as a moderator between them. Forms of justice are put into place in an attempt to control these drives, one example being the proclamation that “Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person’s blood be shed” (Genesis 9:6). The ethics and laws that develop throughout Genesis seek to “prevent the crudest excesses of brutal violence” but are unable to control “the more cautious and refined manifestations of human aggressiveness” (Freud 70). Since they cannot be completely eradicated, the scriptures instead play into the more negative aspects of human nature, especially narcissism, and manipulate them into a force for conservation rather than annihilation.

Human beings are part of the animal kingdom, and therefore part of nature. If that is true, then everything they create or destroy is by default "natural". I agree with the statement.

Because of this, humans view animals as lesser beings which can be controlled, eaten, and abused at our discretion. Singer argues against this way of thinking by acknowledging the similarities between humans and other “lesser

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

The majority of the population would consider it up surd to entertainor even considersuch an idea of equal rights to animals. However, this is exactly the position Peter Singer, author of, “All Animals Are Equal” has taken. Singer holds the unpopular beliefofequalhappiness of humansand nonhumancreature of occupying the world.Singerbelieves that all animals, with no specificity of dumb animals or smart animals but all animalsshould be granted moral status, similar to that of thecounterpart, humans. Singer articulatesthis argument in an affirming way. He draws the conclusion, that nonhuman entitiesshould be given equal status and moral consideration as human entities is reached though hispresentation of premises that if an entity can shield,

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.

Seems rhetorical, but the fact is animals live through this everyday, without even given the choice. As humans, we establish our authority among all living beings, but for what reasons? Are humans better than all other species? Or is it true that we should hold a precedence over nonhuman animals? The ultimate question then remains, should animals have as much or equal to the same rights as humans? Their are endless arguments for and against this question, and many sub arguments that go hand in hand with each side. In this paper, I will discuss the definition of what animal rights entails and expand on the history that developed it’s meaning. Furthermore, I will thoroughly discuss, reason, and explain each opinion presented by our current society as well as the positions held by previous philosophers. Lastly, I will draw a conclusion to the opinions presented by discussing my personal position on the argument of animal rights.

In his book all animals are equal, Singer argues that human beings should extend to non-human species the same equality of consideration that is extended to fellow human beings. He based his argument on the fact that past liberation movements aimed at condemning discriminations based on gender and sex had been declared absurd at their onset, but had later on yielded fruits. This discrimination against animals, he argues, is similar to these past discriminations. For this reason, he wants the human species to consider non-human animals as having rights just as humans have. In his opinion, the only criterion of moral importance that succeeds in including human beings and excluding all non-humans, is their membership in the homo-sapiens species category, and using this membership as a criterion of moral importance, is completely arbitrary. In other words Singer believes that we should attach importance to the interests of individuals without regard to their species (Daly, 1997). A human being should not be considered superior to a cow just because one is a cow and the other is a dog.

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

Humans have always had a complicated relationship with non-human animals. This relationship has always benefitted the needs of humans, with little consideration for animals’ needs. Some animals are tortured for entertainment, some are butchered for food and others are taken from their habitat and family, and forced to be pets for humans. These are all examples of the ways humans have exploited animals for their own satisfaction. Hal Herzog’s essay “Animals Like Us” describes the complicated relationship that humans and animals have, and how difficult it is to determine what is ethical when dealing with animals. Jonathan Safran Foer makes a similar observation in his essay “The Fruits of Family Trees” of the ethical issues in the

Human nature refers to the characteristics that identify people. In this case, it involves thoughts, feelings, and behavior that are manifested by individuals and independent of culture. Furthermore, human nature is important when it comes to politics, ethics, and religious perspectives of a particular group of people. This is due to the fact that it presents both positive and negative norms that aid to shape or destroy the society. Moreover, the study of human nature is boosted by the findings of philosophers such as Aristotle, Hobbes, and Socrates. Additionally, Charles Darwin devised theories that remain significant to its interpretation and understanding. In East Asia, countries such as China and Korea acknowledge that humans are naturally good or evil. In this respect, researchers such as Chan Chung and Ying Pin dictate that these desires exist interchangeably. For instance, good people may become evil if their desires and wishes are not met. Similarly, daily encounters and activities may end up streamlining the evil. Moreover, the concept of human nature is cemented and reinforced by religious beliefs. For instance, countries such as Korea, Japan, and Taiwan embrace Buddhism and regard it as their major religion. In this case, Buddhists believe that doing and participating in morally-upright activities is important for their well-being. Also, it enables them to advance and realize the benefits of enlightenment. Considering the above information, this study aims to