Southwest Airlines, Global Positioning System : Humans Is Driven By Competition And The Pressures Of Conflict

The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions (Locke, Ch. 2, Section 6).

In the essay “Humans Ought to Use Nature to Serve Their Own Needs,” Tibor R. Machan says humans should use nature for their own wants and feel no guilt or shame about it. He feels that it is okay for human beings to keep destroying the planet with pollution, and the toxic fumes and chemicals that we pump into the air we breathe every day. Machan believes that because human beings are nature themselves, we should be able to use nature however we please and indulge in activities just for our own personal enjoyment and happiness. There are many environmental activists concerned with the disappearing rain forests and scientists who study global warming who would be appalled at Tibor R. Machan when he says he is grateful for all of the despoiling of our planet, not to mention everything else he feels about exploiting nature just for fun activities.

Paul Taylor approaches “respect for nature” as a moral attitude, meaning that if an individual is unable to comprehend the “meaning and conditions of applicability” of the attitude, they are also unable to have the attitude as a part of their “moral outlook” (Taylor 103). “Respect for nature” is defined by two essential concepts, the good of a being, and the concept of inherent worth.

Aldo Leopold is on the forefather of modern environmentalism. His book, A Sand County Almanac, is based on the notion of viewing land as a community and as a commodity. In the chapter “The Land Ethic”, Leopold invokes a rethinking of our relationships to our world and is based on the principle that ethics are “a process in ecological evolution” (238). Leopold describes the stages of ethic evolving and explains that the rules for socializing were originally defined for human beings. These rules are expanded upon in the next stage of “Ethical Sequence” (237-238), describing how humans interact toward their community. The third stage is the ethics between humans and the land. Upon analyzing “The Land Ethic” I have come to the conclusion that in order to have respect and ethic for land, or anything, one must make a personal connection.

In attempting to reveal insight upon the first part of this two-fold question, one must first discern the meaning of human nature. According to the authoritative opinion of The Random House College Dictionary human nature is defined as; "the psychological and social qualities that characterize mankind." In assessing the psychological and social qualities of mankind, it was easy to find oneself consumed within the vastness of characteristical qualities for which humanity has been endowed. These qualities range from ignorance to knowledge; grief to joy; from incontinence to self-restraint; lust to perseverance; injustice to

For years, natural theologians have searched for answers to human morality by observing nature. By studying the “nonmorality” in nature, it allows for humans to rationalize the inhumanity they see, which justifies our own cruel behaviors. What natural theologians do not understand is that nature is nonmoral; it contains no moral messages and cannot teach humans about how our actions relate to morality. Stephen Jay Gould explores this idea in his essay “Nonmoral Nature” by arguing that the elements within nature do not know the difference between good or bad, they are strictly instinctual. Underneath this argument, he reveals that the answers do not lie in nature, but rather that it lies in humans, and our ability to control good and evil. Gould argues that rather than observing nature in search for the answers on morality, people must to look at themselves to understand it.

The question of whether infant and nonhuman animal behavior can be labeled as “moral”, can be answered using the works of Korsgaard, Bloom, Frans de Waal, Bekoff and Pierce. These 5 writers form two camps on either side of this argument.

From the moment they are born, humans have a naturally evil predisposition. Although the term ‘evil’ is difficult to define, there are various views on morality. The most commonly referenced one, Moral Objectivism, holds that moral standards are universally transcendent, and that certain acts are right or wrong independent of human subjectivity. It is by this unspoken moral code that humanity’s acts are judged. There is some debate whether a fundamental human nature exists, as social and environmental influences are present from the moment someone is born. But if we can define human nature, it is beyond doubt, naturally evil. The English philosopher Thomas

In the state of nature, man relies completely on himself. He uses the natural world around him to pose as guidelines and laws for survival. Man will strive to be on top, whether in the case of nature or involving human interaction. Man, in the state of nature, is inherently evil, and when entered into society, he becomes more greedy, self-involved, selfish, and power-hungry due to the emergence of other humans with the same intention of being as successful as he can be. The competitive drive of human nature urges the need for an individual to always remain in the highest position and be greater and excel in everything above everyone. Man’s notorious attribute of taking advantage of each other’s weaknesses

Traditionaly, the state of nature argument functions as a heuristic device. Simply put, it is a teaching tool used to characterize the initial situation of humankind’s coming together into social organization —this situation may be more or less antagonistic, or more or less harmonious depending on what the particular theorist understands as “human nature” in the absence of rules of jjustice. 6 Those individuals who are traditionaly

Although commonly interpreted as being such, the state of nature is not equivalent to everyone acting out of self-preservation. The state of nature arises from humans’ ill perception of what is, in fact, self-preservation. While we may wish to act out of self-preservation, we often seek to satisfy immediate needs without considering the consequences, thus leading to conflict. Likewise, Hobbes’ thinks we are often too concerned with others’ perceptions of ourselves, evident by his discussion of glory as a principle cause of quarrel. Humans ought to follow the laws of self-preservation, and thereby ought to endeavor peace, but yet, our shortsightedness prevents us from doing so.

There are many philosophies regarding the way people should live their lives. Two of the more interesting theories are from John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. Both of these theorists write about the state of nature. The state of nature is a representation of the human being prior to the society or in a more contemporary state. Locke and Hobbes have tried to make their views on the state of nature tie back to their In this sense, these authors also attempted to trace how the transition to the state has shown, or in other words, how human has been socialized while leaving behind him the animal state. People have been discussing for years about whose idea of the state of nature was better. Hobbes thought that humans were a very terrible and nasty kind of people and if left deserted, they would lead themselves to anarchy, chaos, violence, and destruction. Locke, figured that people had the right to be free from control and restrictions, and that

Our natural state within the universe when compared to the scale of history is extremely insignificant, and arises the fluid thought that our complete conscious existence relies on evolutionary accidents. It becomes clear with time that our knowledge of ourselves as a population of species compared to any other mammals is quite significant but yet completely detrimental to the health of our universe. We must be able as humans to grasp these concepts and particularly build a world better suited for future figures to give philosophical thoughts and aspects as the human race continues to develop. There is a shortcoming with our behavior, as Rachels describes, that if an action would help satisfy our own self-interest, than we see the most reason to perform such tasks. This leaves us prone to being selfish and to sometimes hold interests out of other people’s version of acceptable behavior. Rachels signifies that all people do not have to follow any one true combination of morals, ethics, or

Ethics is the study of what is right and wrong in human conduct. Environmental ethics studies the effects of human’s moral relationships on the environment and everything within it (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2008). The ethical principles that govern those relations determine human duties, obligations, and responsibilities with regard to the Earth’s natural environment and all of the animals and plants that inhabit it (Taylor, 1989). The purpose of this paper is to reveal environmental issues that are threatening the existence of life on Earth, and discus our social obligations to refrain from further damaging our environment, health and life for future generations. I will discus the need for appropriate actions and the ethical

Anthropocentrism, a recurring theme in Stephen Jay Gould’s Nonmoral Nature essay, defines humans as the most important part of society. It is believed by many ethicists that the origin of anthropocentrism is in the story of Creation, in the book of Genesis. In the story of Creation, it is interpreted that humanity has power and importance above all other inhabitants of Earth, including nature. However, different attitudes toward anthropocentrism over time have allowed for the belief that anthropocentrism connects to facets of morality, where only humans are considered moral. If only humans are considered moral, then why do people continue to describe nature in terms of morality? This is a question that Gould attempts to answer in his essay as he expresses his concerns about how nature should not be defined and described in terms of morality, yet we continue to do so nonetheless. Gould uses rhetorical devices to argue that the self-centered aspect of humans causes anthropocentric descriptions of the occurrences in nature to justify the cruelty that transpires.