Nature And Culture, Humans And Non-Human Dualism

When there are many biocentric individualists appealing to extend the moral standing to the other creatures than human, they always focus their minds on the every individual in the system no matter whether this individual is either conscious or non-conscious. Like the Taylor argued, “conscious or not, all are equally teleological centers of life in the sense that each is unified system of goal0oriented activities directed toward their preservation and well-being.” (taylor, 210). Gary Varner, as one member in the group of the biocentric individualism, is also having the similar argument that every non-conscious and conscious entity should have the moral standing in the different way. In this essay, I will first dispart and reconstruct Gary Varner’s argument into four premises and then indicate how it contradicts with the Peter Singer’s argument whose view is deviate from that of Varner in terms of the required conditions with which giving one entity moral standing.

We, human beings feel distinctly unique, individual and most importantly, unmistakably superior due to our exclusive intelligence. This is why we, as a society, tend to look down on other types of life-forms, insect or animal, as they do not possess that desired intellect. Yet, Lewis Thomas, in his opinion essay “On Societies as Organisms”, argues that human society has much to learn from the communal accomplishment of other life-forms. The author effectively conveys this main idea through his use of analogy, enumeration of examples and through his level of language.

At some point in time we have all wondered what it means to human, and what we are supposed to do with our lives. Throughout the centuries, there have been gradual changes in what it means to be human. Through Pico della Mirandola we will how man became the measure and took the place of God, through Charles Darwin we will see how nature and science began to take the place of man, and through the art of Friedrich we can visually see all of these changes.

According to Durkheim’s work The Dualism of Human Nature and Its Social Conditions (DHN), a man has a dual nature which is made up of the body (individual) and the soul (social). He sheds light on this by citing post-Durkheim theories which he does not agree with and which do not solve the problem of this dual nature. Durkheim also uses The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (EFRL) to discuss the religious aspect of the body and soul. Upon reading, it is discovered that as society evolves, so does this “dual nature.”

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.

Anthropocentrism describes a human-centered view of our relationship with the environment. An anthropocentric denies or ignores the notion that nonhuman entities can have rights. In contrast biocentrism ascribes value to certain living things or to the biotic realm in general. In this perpective human life and non human life both have ethical standing. Ecocentrism judges actions in terms of their effects on whole ecological systems, which consist of living and nonliving elements and the relationships among them.

The questions, “What does it mean to be human, and how might we transcend human nature?” have been a subject of debate for philosophical and theological thinkers for centuries. In recent history, scientific discoveries have led to a resurgence of these ancient debates that break down into three primary schools of thought. There are those who believe that we, like the rest of the animal kingdom, have certain basic “programming” that determines our fundamental nature, and those who believe that human beings are born “tabula rasa” and that nurture determines who we are. The issue becomes increasingly complex for those with the theological belief that human beings are spiritual creatures and that our spirituality is what defines us. However, a

One of the most vital concepts incorporated into The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is the representation and depiction of the duality of mankind. Jekyll works to find a solution which will separate him into his reckless, immoral persona and his respectable, Victorian self. After consumption, this potion causes him to completely transform into a man who is known as Hyde. As Hyde, he can express himself in immoral, evil ways. This not only includes moral and immoral wants but rational and irrational wants. Not only does this transformation enable him to keep his good reputation even while he does horrid, unacceptable things, but it allows him to do things which he most likely would not even

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.

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.

The third component, however, is somewhat difficult to grasp and harder for some to accept; but it is also the most crucial when adopting the attitude of respect. If one fails to accept Taylor’s third element then one cannot adopt the attitude of respect. This is where Taylor is mistaken. Taylor fails, or at least neglects, to consider the importance of his third element. Instead, he places most of the emphasis on moving to deny human superiority and then concludes that by doing so only then can one respect nature. Yet, in order to allow Taylor’s fourth element, one must first concede that all Teleological Centers of Life have equal inherent worth. Therefore, when one accepts and believes the third component of the biocentric outlook only then can they adopt the attitude of respect. Subsequently, I plan to show that the third element and not the fourth is fundamental in adopting the attitude of respect.

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

Where there is humanity, there is logical thinking and individualism. I believe that this is what separates human beings from animal species. Each

Cartesian dualism and transhumanism are both controversial theories within their time contexts. Leahey (2004) describes Descartes dualism as the separation of the body and the soul. The soul is immaterial and is the location for thought, consciousness, and the Cartesian Theatre, and controls the actions of the material body. Transhumanism theorises that technology will enhance and supersede human evolution (Elkins 2011,) as technology will become an extension of ourselves, or already is. I will explore the arguments for the strengths and weaknesses of these theories, and explore their contribution to modern psychology.