Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
A summary of human dignity
A summary of human dignity
A summary of human dignity
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: A summary of human dignity
What kind of nature is it that allows the thought that human beings are owed some special kind of privileges and kind of treatment? In his essay “ Human dignity” Francis Fukuyama examines what sets humans apart from other species. What Fukuyama believes makes humans special is often referred to as “Factor X”; something that no other species has. Some qualities of Factor X are individual characteristics such as skin color, looks, or social class. Other components of Factor X relate to the mental capacities of humans. The belief that everyone should be treated equally is a thought that many argue; regardless of our social norm, nonhuman species should be treated equally as well. There is really no specific advantage of one species over another.
Animals should be considered to have right to life, and freedom from suffering. Their living environments and their territories should be respected. They should be considered as equal creatures on this earth with equal rights. In those fundamental ways they should be treated like humans. To do less is to consider human beings to be somehow above all of creation, as if our rights are more important. Animals are animals, and humans are humans. However, we all live on this planet we call earth and are connected by a series of communities all around us.
Would clones or cyborgs be considered nonhuman? Fukuyama believes that a computer should not be considered human because they lack basic sensory input and feeling of a human. Fukuyama goes on to say “ It is perfectly possible to design a robot with heat sensors in it’s fingers, the robot could keep itself from being burned, but it would actually be devoid of the most important quality of a human being, feelings” (199). This quote reflects that reg...
... middle of paper ...
... so they can help their handlers reach any place they might want to go. Additionally a guide dog must use it’s common sense and natural instinct to disobey any command that would put the owner in danger. This ability is commonly known as selective disobedience. This example then brings up the argument whether nonhuman species have the characteristics needed in order to be considered legal.
The basis of legalization of nonhuman rights is found in many different areas in society. Darwinian believes human beings are part of a continuation of life and have no special status. He also states the need for animal rights, since animals can experience pain and suffering as well as humans. The rights of certain animals, in his view deserves greater respect than those of certain humans. Any living creature on this earth should be provided with basic rights. They have the right
“What the demand for equality of recognition implies is that when we strip all of a person’s contingent and accidental characteristic away, there remains some essential human quality underneath that is worthy of a certain minimal level of respect (Fukuyama 186).” In all true fairness this does seem like a good idea in the beginning, however people will always find another reason or characteristic to say that one group of people is better than another. How does Factor X put boundaries and restriction on those that do of fall into the category of Factor X? How can Factor X be improved or change to include them? Do we then create another type of Factor X to create equality again or are we as humans going to accept the fact that there can never really be truly fair, b...
Millions of years of evolution have taken us from a single cell to a genetically unique animal we now call humans. This progression and advancement has taken us from beings with no language or sense of thought, to what is now an extremely advanced human race, exploring the world as we know it. In Human Dignity, Francis Fukuyama explains the concepts of what makes an animal human. This can be a very hard concept to grasp and even Fukuyama cannot give a clear answer. Fukuyama agrees that there is not solely one characteristic that makes an animal human, it a group of elements, which he calls Factor X. These elements are what should ultimately give animals the right to be treated with dignity, honor, and respect. If animals can develop an advanced
Speciesism, as defined by Peter Singer, “is a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species” (Singer, Animal Liberation, p. 6). The rationale for the preferential treatment encapsulated in this definition is simply the fact that those receiving the preferred treatment belong to the same species, and not on the basis of any grounds of higher intelligence or other attributes.
Many philosophers including Tom Regan and Mary Anne Warren disagree with Carl Cohen and say that animals do have rights. According to Warren’s weak animal rights position, morality and reason are maximized where no sentient creatures cane be killed without good reason. Tom Regan’s strong animal rights policy is comparatively unreasonable because it advocates for halting all killing because every sentient being has value. Prior to coming to the conclusion that animals do have rights, Regan dispelled three wrong routes on coming to this conclusion. Animals should have the opportunity to pursue their satisfactions, not be deliberately harmed, and not killed without a good enough reason. In this paper I will argue that animals do have some rights according to Warren’s weak animal rights position.
The fact that humans can take the lives of animals depicts their lack of moral value in relation to humans. However, if moral value is tied to moral rights, how does one compare the moral rights of humans and animals and why do humans possess more moral rights than nonhuman species? The main reason why some may say that humans possess more moral rights than animals is because they are not self aware and lack cognitive capacities. In Empty Cages: Animal Rights and Vivisection, Tom Regan states that those who deny animals of their rights usually emphasize on the uniqueness of human beings by stating that, "...we understand our own mortality and make moral choices. Other animals do none of these things. That is why we have rights and they do not (p. 100)." However, in The Mental Powers of Man and the Lower Animals by Charles Darwin, he states that animals, or at least nonhuman mammals, share the same cognitive abilities as humans. For instance, nonhuman mammals are able to "learn from experience, remember the past, anticipate the future (p.102)." Additionally, nonhuman mammals are also capable of experiencing fear, jealousy, and sadness. With these cognitive abilities, nonhuman mammals should then be qualified to obtain moral rights, which are
Many countries around the world agree on two basic rights, the right to liberty and the right to ones own life. Outside of these most basic human and civil rights, what do we deserve, and do these rights apply to animals as well? Human rights worldwide need to be increased and an effort made to improve lives. We must also acknowledge that “just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do other creatures” (Dalai Lama). Animals are just as capable of suffering as we are, and an effort should be made to increase their rights. Governments around the world should establish special rights that ensure the advancement and end of suffering of all sentient creatures, both human and non-human. Everyone and everything should be given the same chance to flourish and live.
The belief of human superiority, also known as anthropocentrism, is vague and a biased opinion. It can be thought of like the idea of racial, gender or religious supremacy. People cannot go and compare themselves as a whole and animals if they have little understanding about how animals, other than them, think. As humans, they would like to think of themselves as important, but in most cases people think they, as a species, are the most impo...
Animals can be a man's best friend; however, they can also be ones worst enemy after passing certain boundaries. Peter Singer who wrote Animal Liberation gave valid points in my opinion because animals do have a right to live and we should give them their space. Humans take everything for granted and never seem to learn until it too late. Today slaughterhouses are abusing animals in disturbing ways which has to change. I will agree with Singers concepts on animals because they have a right to live a peaceful life like humans; they have a life ahead of them once they are born. Singer argues that animals should have their interests considered throughout their lives. Singer wants to eliminate speciesism from our thoughts which is, a human discriminatory belief that all other animals are not as good as them therefore they do not have rights and we could do what we want to them. We should not be the only types of "animals" in this earth who has a set of rights we should abide.
This view, that humans are of special moral status, is constantly attempted to be rationalized in various ways. One such defense is that we are not morally wrong to prioritize our needs before the needs of nonhuman animals for “the members of any species may legitimately give their fellows more weight than they give members of other species (or at least more weight than a neutral view would grant them). Lions, too, if they were moral agents, could not then be criticized for putting other lions first” (Nozick, 79). This argument, that we naturally prefer our own kind, is based on the same fallacy used by racists while defending their intolerant beliefs and therefore should be shown to have no logical merit.
In conclusion, I agree with Tom Regan’s perspective of the rights view, as it explores the concept of equality, and the concept of rightful treatment of animals and humans. If a being is capable of living, and experiencing life, then they are more than likely capable of feeling pleasure and pain, except in a few instances. If humans are still treated in a respectable and right way even if some cannot vote, or think for themselves, then it is only fair that animals who also lack in some of these abilities be treated as equals. As Regan puts it, “pain is pain, wherever it occurs” (1989).
A discussion of the justification of unusual consideration of human dignity in Fuller’s argument is a discussion of an exceptional connection between the internal morality of law and substantive morality. But the claim of anything like an exceptional connection here must rest on a proposition of the thesis that reads the internal morality of law as law’s moral element. This thesis primarily provides the framework to understand two key features of the moral element of law: the moral foundation of law and the moral task of law. If this thesis is accepted, then human dignity can be justified as relative moral fact to the moral element of law through the two keys feature of law’s moral element. In this
Animal Rights and Animal Welfare? Two totally different things; one implies that animals should have the equality of humans, and the other implies that animals must be treated with respect, and cared for properly. Animal Welfare is the act of respecting, and caring for animals properly, and Animal Rights is wanting animals treated the same as humans. Now, the issue with this is, animals are used on a daily basis; varying from clothing to shoes, to ingestion, and scientific research. My opinion on it is that animals cannot be treated equally as humans, for they need us just as much as we need them. Over time, animals have been domesticated to depend on humans and that is exactly what has happened. For example, they now depend on us for
... concept. An animal cannot follow our rules of morality, “Perhaps most crucially, what other species can be held morally accontable” (Scully 44). As a race humans must be humane to those that cannot grasp the concept. Animals do not posess human rights but they posess the right to welfare and proper treatment by their handlers.
Most would not put animals in the same category as humans so giving them the same rights seems quite ridiculous; since humans are supposed to be seen as the alpha species. What is a more realistic term is to consider them our property, because we continue to use animal testing and think it is okay to harm these animals. In the end, animal testing and research is cruel and should be done away with. It is a proven fact that animals feel pain just like humans do. No animal deserves to have his or her life purpose be to give his or her life unknowingly for science. We must to put an end to this cruelty and torture because just like humans, animals are living beings. No matter how it is perceived, it is cruel and unusual punishment.
Animals have played a role in society since evolution began. First, animals were used for food, their skins were used for clothing and shelter, and their bones for tools. Even though animals became domesticated they were still used as such and eventually for many other purposes. Today most of us accept the idea that people may use animals but treat them correctly. The United States has even created anti-cruelty laws