Non Paradigmatic Humans And Animals Case Study

Exam Two

Phil 140

Winter 2016

Adanna Nwaro

1. The moral status of a creature is at the core of many issues in ethics. That is, in determining the moral status of the creature, we 're interested in what features a creature must have in order to be a morally relevant being (the kind of creature that has moral rights). Non-paradigmatic humans (i.e. infants, the cognitively disabled, etc.) and animals are importantly related in answering this question. Explain how non-paradigmatic humans and animals are related.

One characteristic of Human beings is that for one to be considered Human he must be able to achieve the kind of dignity and self-respect that human beings have, he must be able to choose his actions rather than be led by instinct. Hence, the values of appreciating art, literature, and the goods that come with deep personal relationships all require one to be rational, autonomous,

Just like Smith, Jones plans to drown the child in his bath. However, just as he enters the bathroom Jones witnesses the child slip, hit his head, and fall face down in the water. Jones is delighted and stands by, in anticipation to push the child 's head back under if need be, but it isn’t necessary. After a little thrashing about, the child drowns by himself. Jones watches and does nothing "coincidentally."

Smith killed the child, whereas Jones "only" let the child die. That is the difference between the cases. However, did either man behave better better than the other from a moral point of view? If the difference between killing and letting die were in itself morally important, we could say that Jones 's behavior was less disgusting than Smith 's. But we would all agree that they both had criminal intentions that led to the same outcome. Both men acted from the same motive, personal gain, and had exactly the same end in view when they acted or Did not act in the case of