Cosmic Way Of Life Essay

1 I have been studying the traits and dispositions of the lower animals (so-called), and contrasting them with the traits and dispositions of man. I find the result humiliating to me. For it obliges me to renounce my allegiance to the Darwinian theory of the Ascent of Man from the Lower Animals, since it now seems plain to me that that theory ought to be vacated in favor of a new and truer one, this new and truer one to be named the Descent of Man from the Higher

As the human race makes life-changing discoveries, it is made apparent that there is always more to learn as the universe, instead of becoming familiar, is becoming absurd. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, written by Douglas Adams, as well as the 2005 film adaption, portrays absurdity to be an all-encompassing system in the universe. Through the introduction and attempt to understand lack of reason, the narration of important elements and the human perception of the universe, the novel is as a whole, more complete than the film. With these points it is irrefutable that The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy develops the theme of absurdity with greater prowess than the film, resulting in a deeper

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.

With regard to the ubiquitous prevalence of pain, suffering, and death in the course of evolution, Pecocke sees both positive and negative aspects of natural evil. The increase in complexity that led to the emergence of consciousness was actually the consequence of the competition among species for better survival in natural selection. In that vein, the increase of entropy contributed the diversification of living organisms in the interplay of chance and law.

Neil Degrasse Tyson points out in his article “Cosmic Perspective”, first published in the Natural Magazine in 2007, that if every human were to truly comprehend how stupendous and interraled the universe is to us, our perspective on humanity would shift from a focus on our distinctions to our connections. Tyson explores through many examples of the “cosmic perspective” to prove just how closely associated we are with the universe.

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

Humans typically live more refined lives compared to that of a wild animal, but what if, like the weasel, we all lived a life controlled by instinct rather than insight? Dillard goes on to express her regret of not seizing the moment and, like the eagle, becoming one with the weasel to bask in nature and think of time as merely a life source like blood rather than a measurement of deadlines. Unlike weasels and other wild animals, we as humans have the choice to live as we please so we could either transform ourselves into a more primitive being or resume our domesticated life. Choice is an important part of human life, but is not only an ability possessed by us as some animals can have the pleasure of choosing what they can do; but not necessarily choices that can completely revolutionize how they

When thinking about morality, it is necessary to consider how aspects from both nature and nurture, along with free will, may form ones moral beliefs and dictate ones moral actions. To understand how moral beliefs as well as actions formulate and operate within individuals and societies, it is imperative that a general definition of morality is laid out. Morality, then, can be defined as ones principles regarding what is right and wrong, good or bad. Although an individual may hold moral beliefs, it is not always the case that moral actions follow. Therefore, in this essay I aim to provide an explanation that clarifies the two and in doing so I also hope to further the notion that one’s moral framework is a product of all three factors; nature, nurture, and free will. The first part of this essay will flush out what exactly morality it and how it manifests similarly across individuals and differently across individuals. Contrariwise, I will then explain how morality manifests similarly across societies and differently across societies. Alongside presenting the information in this order, I will trace morality back to primordial times to showcase how morality has evolved and developed since then, not only from a nature-based standpoint, but also from a

“The difference between the brain of the human and the higher animal obviously lies in the degree, not the difference on the essence” (Charles Darwin). The purpose of the quote is to express the feeling that the animal and human is similar, they have the human-like qualities. In Life of Pi written by Yann Martel, Pi uses animal imagery to show that animals that can be mad, suffer, and sad which are all human qualities.

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.

Should we as humans expect to find intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe? There are many reasons for and against this concept, but first we should trace just how our terrestrial life started.

In the article Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Laws, Arthur A. Leff took an agnostic approach when determining what morality should be comprised of. He suggested that humans struggle with desiring to follow a predetermined and unchallengeable set of moral rules, while at the same time wanting the autonomy to create those rules.

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

Many people who live on Earth are close minded to what is really out there in the universe. They cannot even begin to fathom the vastness of it and how Earth is just a tiny little speck compared to everything else out there. From the planets to the stars and out towards the edge of the unknown, we can only see what science provides us with. From this, we know that we are nothing but a tiny planet located in a solar system of millions in a galaxy of many more in the universe.