Stephen Jay Gould Nonmoral Nature Essay

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.

Primatology is the scientific study of non-human primate behaviors among wild apes, monkeys and other related animals in natural settings or in laboratories by conducting lab experiments and studies on captive primates. A person who studies primatology is a primatologist. There are many reasons for studying primates, but possibly the most significant reason is to learn about the origins of humans. When studying primatology, one can easily observe the behavioral similarities primates share with humans, and probably begin to understand how humans got to where they are today. The reason anthropology studies primates over any other animal is because primates are the closest living relatives to humans. One primatologist, who significantly surpassed many others in her field, was Jane Goodall. Jane Goodall studied the behaviors of primates and other animals as well, but she specifically studied chimpanzees. Goodall in her book, In the Shadows of Man, shared her three groundbreaking discoveries she achieved through her extensive observations and research. Goodall’s three major discoveries were the complex social system chimps had lived, the hunting and meat consumption process and the usage of tools. Goodall’s research lead to massive evolution in primatology because her research was the starting point that allowed other primatologist to conduct other important researches on chimpanzees and other primates. They managed to study primates in a

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.

Prior to diving into the many new insights that can be comprehended while viewing history through a natural lense, it is important to define nature in this context. While man is technically a creation of nature, and therefore nature himself, he shall be excluded from this brief definition of what composes nature. Here, nature will be considered everything living or otherwise on this earth that is not a creation or product of humanity. All other creatures and parts of the environment are to be considered nature.

When questioning whether Schnitzler is a moralist, his writing must be placed within the wider context of the naturalist movement. Naturalism’s aim was to hold a mirror up to reality, and reflect it back as accurately as possible. It is not the role of a naturalist, as a moralist. Rather, a naturalist should expose their society and analyse its workings, so the audience, confronted with the truth, can in turn draw their own conclusions. In real life, we make our own judgements based on what we see, rather than being given one simple moral answer. Thus, this should also be the case in a naturalist play. Conforming to the naturalist tradition, I think it is clear that Schnitzler’s primary aim in Liebelei is objective reasoning and analysis, as I will demonstrate in this essay. However, Schnitzler’s obvious consciousness of issues within his society shines through, and he cannot help but steer the audience towards a moral judgement in favour of the broken-hearted Christine, and against the careless bourgeoise as represented by Fritz and Theodor. Schnitzler is certainly an effective analyst, but while he is not exactly a didactic writer or moralist, there are clearly certain moral judgements set down within the play which mean he cannot be described as a totally objective commentator.

Throughout “Nonmoral Nature”, Gould explains that we need to look at nature without personifying it or putting human values on it. He believes that those who approach a scientific situation with a pre-established view in mind are preventing the kind of objectivity and fairness that scientific examination is supposed to produce. Gould explains that the existence of what seems to be evil in nature creates an argument between scientists and creationists. Many phenomena that occur in nature seem to be wrong or disturbing, and go against the idea that God creates everything and that everything is benevolent. One such creature is the ichneumon wasp. The ichneumon wasp is the stuff of nightmares; the larva are planted inside of a caterpillar or other

A quick comparison to Vicki Hearne’s “What’s Wrong with Animal Rights?” to Peter Singer’s “Speciesism and Moral Status”, might indicate Hearne’s argument is stronger due to her strategic and effective use of emotional appeals (i.e. pathos). These appeals allow Hearne to connect quickly and easily with her audience. Hearne is also quite clever in terms of stressing her occupation as an animal trainer. However, after a swift comparison of the two articles, it is evident that Singer’s “Speciesism and Moral Status” offers readers a stronger and more valid argument. Both Singer and Hearne are arguing their position on animal rights and the extent of human involvement. Since Hearne’s article is primarily based on her attempt to persuade her

In his book, Last Child in the Woods (2008), Richard Louv illustrates his distaste for the widening divide between man and nature by his use of exemplification, narration and hypophora. Louv’s purpose for writing this book is to inform the audience that mankind should change its ways and move towards a lifestyle that is more appreciative of its surroundings. Louv uses a frustrated tone to invoke the feeling of guilt within the reader because they are responsible for making humanity unappreciative of nature.

The focus of this paper will be R. G. Frey’s passage in “Moral Standing, the Value of Lives, and Speciesism”. The intended objection of the focus will be two moral theories, Kantianism and Act Utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism being the rebuttal of the Kantianism view on the moral issue at hand.

Stephen Jay Gould in his article "The Evolution Of Life On Earth" aims to clarify the misconception of natural selection as the sole reason for evolution. Yet, he emphasizes on the presence of other causes and the complex unforeseeable nature of the universe that can not be explained in one theory. Even though the article is concerned with a deep scientific subject and factual information, we see the usage of description in every sentence. Description has an intrinsic role in this article where the uniqueness and the beauty of the language relies on the strong descriptive construction. It employs the power of the language and the readers senses to bring life to the subject. It also simplifies it by liking the described setting or object to something else that the readers are easily able to visualize and associate in their minds. In addition, using specific descriptive words make a statement more dynamic and effectual to the readers convincing them and inviting them to see the situation from the author perspective.( to help convince the reader and strengthen the argument of the author). It could exaggerate the details to effect the readers in a more emotional way and capture their attention. This won 't only engage the targeted audience, but it will allure other readers as well.

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 order to exhibit his view on species egalitarianism, David Schmidtz contrasts his views against those of Paul Taylor. Based on his premises in his definition of biocentrism, Taylor believed that all species, including humans, were of equal worth and value. He claimed that the human species was not superior to any other. Although Schmidtz corresponded with Taylor in the sense that biocentrism did exist, and that all living things had value, he objects to the idea that there is equal value among all species. This is made tremendously clear when he states, “I conclude that Taylor’s biocentrism has a point, but that biocentrism does not require any commitment to species equality” (115).

In more recent times the rising prevalence around animal ethics, in the world itself as well as in the realm of philosophy, a multitude of people are finding connection between the somewhat hidden prejudice of speciesism and the indisputable prejudices of sexism and racism. To fully grasp this association, one must first understand the seriously

In Stanley Benn’s “Egalitarianism and Equal Consideration of Interests”, it is explained that animals and human imbeciles are distinguished not because of fundamental inequality, but solely on the basis that the two subjects are of different species. In regard to animals’ moral rights and the infringement of those rights due to the practice of speciesism, Singer employs a utilitarian style of argument to defend animals’ moral rights; in short, the interests of each being which is involved should be taken into consideration and said interests should be given the same weight as that of another being. Speciesism is morally wrong because it attempts to assign undeserved weight to the interests of beings of separate species, solely based off the difference of species. Naturally, or rather unnaturally, human beings have always awarded themselves the utmost importance due to the idea of human dignity, as in humans occupy the central spot within any earthly ranking. Logically, Singer argues that the practice of speciesism is wrong because the conditions in which it exists are synonymous to the conditions which facilitate racism and sexism, before they had been recognized as

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