Steinbock states that “Intelligence is thought to be a morally relevant capacity because of its relation to the capacity for moral responsibility”. In comparing the ideas of racism or sexism to speciecism, the lack of the capacity to be taught to own those rights as can be done in the divide between genders and races, appears to be a measure through which the capacity for rights are bestowed. Because a woman or an African American can be taught and can learn and have equal responses to situations and responsibilities, their rights should be equal to that of white men. But on the other hand, animals do not have the capacity to respond to the world as an equal to humans, therefore they are not subject to human morality or the rights that comes from
According to Mary Midgley, a renowned British moral philosopher, humans do indeed have moral duties towards animals. In her article, “Is a Dolphin a Person,” she argues for a more flexible concept of moral personhood that extends to animals in order for humans to understand that they too are also morally important. She begins by writing about the generally accepted view of what a person is and goes on to examine Kant’s black and white antithesis between person and things. She states Kant does not present a satisfactory moral theory as his theory skims over animals while fully elaborating on things, which can properly be used as means to human ends in a way in which people cannot. (Midgley p. 152) In other words, Kant does not believe animals to be persons, but they are not exactly things or objects.
It is wrong when it tends otherwise." He supports the idea from two perspectives. First from the utilitarian point of view, he explains that not attempting to conserve wild species jeopardizes resources that humans depend on. The second view, the bio centric position, he emphasizes that wild species have an 'inherent right to exist. I think that to him there are just no other options and he does not want readers to begin to consider not intervening in the lives of wild animals in order to conserve them.
We are constantly faced with choosing between right and wrong, and The Law of Nature helps us to do this. Lewis states that all humans have natural instinct, but the difference between us and other animals is that we have a choice other than just relying on natural instinct. Animals simply have the Law of Instinct, whereas we also have the Law of Human Nature that is inscribed in our
Humans have more opportunities and chances on the way they want there life to be and animals really don’t have the choice even though they could also live where they want to live. Like I had said before, it would be nice to live like a weasel, but think about it, living like a weasel really means not caring for what others do, say. Like Henry David Thoreau stated, “Can there not be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right from wrong, but conscience”? We have the right to live how we want and where we want and by doing what we want, we are willing to face the consequences. Humans also have to worry about the ecnmical burden that comes with every thing.
1.1 Explain what is meant by; Diversity = Understanding that every person is unique, different, treating people as individuals. Equality = Means treating everyone equally regardless of their colour, age, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability etc it is different to treating people the same; different people have different needs, so individuality should be taken in to account. Inclusion = Full d active participation, feeling respected, feeling a sense of belonging, being valued for who you are. Discrimination = Unfair or unequal treatment of an individual or group on the grounds of age, disability ,gender, race, religion, beliefs or sexual orientation, being treated less favourable than someone else in the same situation,
I don’t consider your / Pronouncements so important that they can / Just…overrule the unwritten laws of heaven. / You are a man, remember” (Sophocles 12). This seen illustrates, that Creon does think he is god, and has no respect for the real gods. Antigone in so many words is explaining to him that he is wrong, and a person should not be denied burial rights for any reason. Creon does not like her explanation, and explains that “I don’t care if she is my sister’s daughter.
He didn’t mean to kill her, but since Lennie does not understand certain things, he also does not know his own strength. In conclusion, Lennie should not be held responsible for killing Curley’s wife. He should not be accountable because Lennie is not all there and had no idea what he was doing. Another reason Lennie should not be blamed is because Curley’s wife forced him to touch him to touch her hair, and if she did not do that and start yelling at him, none of this would have
In this case with healthcare, based on what Kant is about and the way he goes about ethics, I do not see him being in favor of this act of giving healthcare to all citizens of the United States. The deontological theory also states that happiness does not matter when it comes to making decisions regarding rules and regulations, Immanuel Kant could care less about whos happy and whos not with the decisions he makes. Therefore, Kant would not be supportive of this theory of healthcare for all of those who care concerned. Pleasure and pain also are not valid in Kants theory so whether he is providing units of pleasure or units of pain, it really does not matter to him. That is why Mills is the perfect fit for this concept of healthcare to all concerned because he wants to provide the highest unit of hedons to the
The law against polygamy is a law based on morals. Countless people believe gay marriage is morally wrong however it is not illegal. It is merely frowned upon, nevertheless laws were not made on morals or things people do not approve of. Polygamy is something people believe is morally incorrect; even so it should not be against the