He points out that there are many physiological traits that separate humans, these traits can be used to justify human discrimination. Since as a society we consider these physical differences a mute point for equality amongst each other, Singer infers that physiological differences cannot be used as a property of any kind of discrimination, that equality is a moral idea; therefore animals should be given the same rights as humans. The situation Singer finds himself in is that speciesism is the cultural norm existent in modern society and in his opinion, contemporary philosophers are failing to make the connection that speciesism justifies human discrimination. He even goes as far to compare the discourse of speciesism to that of former slave owners. Utilitarianism is the main idea that he uses to oppose the idea of specism.
He also believed that the most important characteristic of our personalities is created by how we treat others. While Chuang Tzu preached that things are categorized as good or evil. Everything is everything, and we make our own opinions on the level of goodness or the amount of evil. Chuang Tzu is also a complete anarchist. He believed that the world “does not need governing; in fact it should not be governed.” He also proclaimed that good order results spontaneously when things are let alone.
For one reason owning private property breaks down the state of equity where no one person as more than another. And if mankind has a right to their own preservation do they need the consent of every man in order to appropriate, can he not enclose property without the consent of his fellow commoners. But when God gave man reason to make to make use of nature to the best advantages of life and convenience that made reason for the use and need of private property, therefore not needing the consent of his fellow commoners. If humans fail to use nature to the best advantage we as humans are committing a sin. Even if the state of equity is broken down it is up to each individual to inquire what he needs it is not up to all of mankind to provide for each other.
Details 1. The only criterion of moral importance that succeeds in including all humans, and excluding all non-humans, is simple membership in the species Homo sapiens. Singer argues for this simply by pointing to variation among humans. If we examine the usual characteristics that people say all humans, and only humans, share, we always find that there are human beings who lack those
Given Hobbes’ account of human nature in the state of nature, can one ever leave it? The well-known and oft-quoted assessment, “the life of man [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short,” is Hobbes’ unduly pessimistic and anarchical view of man in the state of nature. He believed the state of nature to be a state of war, where man would do anything for self-preservation, there was no right and wrong, and where there would be “continual fear, and danger of violent death.” The natural state of man is left when individuals give up their natural and anarchic freedom to do whatever they please, in exchange for personal security and it is this that Hobbes bases his theory on the need for government on. For a government to be established each individual must agree to this new establishment as if to say, “I authorize and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men.” This type of social contract works as a quid pro quo between the individuals and the sovereign: the power of the sovereign is absolute as long as the lives of the individuals are protected by the sovereign. Hobbes argues that the only way to establish such a power is for men “to conferre all their power and strength upon One Man, or upon one Assembly of men, that may reduce all their Wills by plurality of voices unto one Will.” In short, Hobbes argues that man leaves the state of nature in order to gain personal security which is achieved through the creation of a civil society, with a governing body.
In other words, it means that there is ‘rule of jungle’ and in the rule of jungle, everyone takes care of themselves. Also justice and injustice; right and wrong do not have any meaning to people in the state of nature. Thus, in order to escape from this, people make the contract. According to this contract, people should trust each other. In the contract, people give up their rights and transfer their rights to the authorization or power so as to live in a justice society.
Hobbes sees natural law as a state of war in which every man is an enemy to every man. (Hobbs, T. 1991 p.94) Locke on the other hand, sees natural law as a state of equality and freedom. (Locke, J. 1967 p. 289). This difference of opinion flows through to their views on social contract and this essay will discuss this difference in theory as Locke is of the belief that government is necessary in order to preserve natural law, and on the contrary, Hobbes sees government as necessary in order to control natural law.
Ethics on use of animals for research The early Greek philosophers valued reason above all else, and ascribed little moral value to animals and even to other humans that did not possess this attribute. While this viewpoint might be viewed as extreme, from a biological perspective this might be seen as competition. Using the survival advantage given to us by our capacity for reason is no less moral or ethical than another animal using its adaptations to survive. However, it should be obvious that by allowing unrestricted human exploitation of animals, there is great potential for extirpation of species. Thus, we utilize animals for food and clothing; we keep them as pets or as livestock; we plant our crops, harvest wild plant products, and build our cities and highways where animals might otherwise have lived, but we do so with restrictions on our
Regardless of how humane, animal rights proponents reject all animal use as exploitation and aim to ban all use of animals by humans. (1) Animal right is an extreme view that attempts to elevate all animals to equality with humans by applying human interpretations of morality. It is based on the philosophical belief that animals have moral rights to life, liberty and other privileges that should be protected by society and the rule of law. In this way, a human infant will be having the same right to life as a mouse in the street or a cow in the pasture. In contrast, animal welfare takes the position that it is morally acceptable for humans to use non-human animals, provided that the testing minimizes animal use and suffering.
A moral relativist would believe that there is no definite set of rules that apply universally. Instead they believe that all decisions should be made upon circumstances at the time and more importantly why the action was made. This is called cultural relativism. The theory of relativist morality was first established by Protagoras who asked questions such as, “what is good for you?” He did not believe that our knowledge was all fixed or that it extended depending on our experiences, as Plato did being a moral absolutist. He stated, “Man is the measure of all things”.