Persson And Savulescu

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.

As for intelligence there have been three capacities and virtues that should be targeted for moral enhancement, which are the sensitivity to the features of situations, thoughtfulness about doing what is moral, and the proper capacity for people to make proper judgments. The continued progress in the modification of learning, cognition, memory, the capabilities of decision-making will help assist the moral enhancement with these tasks. There have also been many neurochemicals that have been used to enhance cognitive abilities, which include increased attention span and cognition span. Drugs like OxyContin have also been used to help with empathy, and to make people feel happier. It may be believed that a drug like soma was only possible in Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave New World, but perhaps not. Utilitarian’s have been pushing for human enhancement that uses drugs, genetic engineering and nanotechnology to ensure the maximum amount of happiness possible while attempting to eliminate any pain. Proponents believe that this would reset the brain’s thinking patterns, and allow people to think more positively by keeping our minds engaged, rather than in a constant dull and depressing state. Many anti- depressant drugs are attempting to do just this. It is safe to say that moral enhancement is not just a potential innovation, but a technology that is already beginning.

In order to conclude that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status (and therefore that no animals deserve a full and equal moral status), there must be some property (P) that all and only human beings have that can ground such a claim.

The idea that all humans are born equal has been something that has been almost installed in our minds. However, in the eyes of Peter Singer, we as humans are constantly violating our own moral code in the way we treat animals. Singer refers to this as speciesism and compares our treatment of animals to the same way sexists and racists treat those who they deem inferior. He also argues that the grounds on which they base their prejudice on are equally fragile. He illustrates this by comparing speciesists to racists. He recalls, “The racists violates the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of his own race…similarly the speciesist allows the interests of his own species to override the greater interests of members of another species” (53.) He initiates this argument by explaining how our willingness to declare all humans as equal when the opposite is fundamentally true. Singer writes, “Like it or not, we must face the fact that humans come in different shapes and sizes; they come with differing moral capacities, differing intellect…if the demand for equality was based on the actual equality of all human beings, we would have to stop demanding equality” (51). Singer seeks to establish that our push for equality ends once the being in question is no longer human. Once he establishes this, he can quickly draw parallels between our unequal treatment of animals and humans. He evolves what initially begins as a far-fetched claim to a nuanced and

In her essay Speaking of Animal Rights, Warren (1987) argues for the weak animal rights position, which holds that non-human animals have weaker rights than human beings because non-human animals do not have the same moral status as us human beings (383-4). This is due to their lack of the ability to “reason well enough to function as autonomous moral agents” (385), which she believes is a requirement for being moral of human beings (384-5). In this essay, I will argue that Warren’s weak animal rights position misses the entire point about speaking of animals rights and we should instead recognize non-human animals as our moral equals and grant them full moral rights in virtue of their entitlement to dignified existence , rather than basing moral equality and rights upon rationality, as Warren indicates.

Moral relativism, as Harman describes, denies “that there are universal basic moral demands, and says different people are subject to different basic moral demands depending on the social customs, practices, conventions, and principles that they accept” (Harman, p. 85). Many suppose that moral feelings derive from sympathy and concern for others, but Harman rather believes that morality derives from agreement among people of varying powers and resources provides a more plausible explanation (Harman, p. 12).The survival of these values and morals is based on Darwin’s natural selection survival of the fittest theory. Many philosophers have argued for and against what moral relativism would do for the world. In this essay, we will discuss

The human race has always boasted its image as the superior species with the ability to think critically, create masterpieces that outlast themselves, and stand on their own two feet; however, when one peers into the true image of human nature, the reality is far from what is portrayed. From discrimination to hypocrisy, the truth has always been exploited to reinforce the “superior species” narrative. Hypocrisy in particular tends to be the most pervasive human flaw and is also “often allied with moral relativism, the personal belief that the moral [,] ethical [, and scientific] standards of others do not necessarily apply to oneself”. Human Beings, or society more

This first point begins with a discussion on modern day views on science in a modern society versus the spiritual based beliefs of old. In ancient days there was a natural understanding of a higher moral order. This understanding has been forsaken in modern American culture. 80% of Current Western culture argues that it is each persons right to define their own set of moral law and

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 nature, the biotic community do not construct paradigms; however, humankind has allowed social constructs to set standards. The standards or logical ways of thinking, and viewing the world have set boundaries between rich, poor, privileged, unprivileged, men, and women. As noted by Professor Picarelli, nature, to reiterate welcomes variations that do not function within binaries. In the misfortunes and transformative events of history, political history, from the works of Aristotle, Aeschylus, Plato, Socrates, Machiavelli, Hobbes, and many others who have contributed to theory of what is not what should be have left the world with a way to view certain objective truths. Aristotle, once said “at his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst” and Aeschylus, “tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world.”

Excluding the presence of a supreme being, humans—representing the most evolved creatures in existence—receive exaltation to the echelon of supreme authority. This factor, in conjunction with secular humanism’s epistemological views, unambiguously propel scientists to the position of ultimate authority, since genuine knowledge is only possible through scientific investigation, and morality is a product of sociological study and technical

Genetic enhancements have been an interesting topic of discussion between people who think it is ethically permissible and others, who think it is morally wrong. One of the most discussed arguments states that it is morally wrong for parents to genetically enhance their child because it takes away the great value of a yet unborn child life. In order to prove it is true, it is useful to explore some facts that serve as an evidence for the argument 's conclusion. Let 's start from thinking of the person 's life as a general concept. Life is something that is given to every single one of us as a natural gift. It does belong only to that particular individual. So, life is a "natural" property that each human has that prevents others making decisions for someone else. For example, if I own a car, it is considered my property. Since it is my vehicle, I would not want anyone else make decisions about it, like driving it somewhere, changing its color or selling it. Another concept that is very important to understand is that human 's life has a certain significance. Person 's life gains importance when an individual achieves something like knowledge, or if he/she gains a new skill, e.g. learning how to play a piano. Majority of such accomplishments are the result of a hard work and time investment. According to Charlotte Buhler, the person 's life goals and values remain in development during the first 20-25 years of life (Buhler, 405). So, this period in human 's life is the most

As evidence, Taylor presented two concepts of moral attitude in living organisms and the four building blocks of biocentric view of nature and living beings.

To require the use of bioenhancement would require society to hurt the majority in order to help the few. A standard utilitarian argument should say that we should not have to be morally required to do something that is not necessary for us. It has been said that the use of moral enhancement undermines one’s autonomy and moral agency. The action of moral enhancement arguably affects our human behavior by not allowing us to fully rationalize behaviour’s without allowing the individual to review one’s own behavior. The act of suppressing human emotion is unethical according to Agar, and believes that utilitarian’s can and should reject the theory of moral enhancement if they believe in human morality.

In the beginning of the essay writers Isabelle and Meaghan Miller point out two different moralities, one being secular morality, which they define as “human logic or reasoning rather than religion”. And Religious morality “which is based on aspects of religion such as fear of God of the desire to do God’s will”. These moralities suggested, define ways the world views the options given or taught to them in life. Further into the presentation, they state that “moralities lie within biology, not only human but all animals. [Implying that] animals have three basic instincts [such as] kin selection, attachment to mate, and sympathy; morality helps us survive and thrive”. In this case, they 're not only voicing