Preview

The Similarities Between Darwin, Species And Morality, By James Rachels

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
679 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
The Similarities Between Darwin, Species And Morality, By James Rachels
Darwin
Species and morality
James Rachels seeks to amplify the ideology between morality and Darwin’s moral treatment of organisms of different species. He says that Darwin advocated for treatment of both humans and non-humans equally without discrimination. This despite his continued use of non-humans for investigative research according to his son was the resultant effect of distaste for cruelty against animals as well as slavery. Rachels explains that Darwin’s theory of morality seems to interject the traditional view of morality.
The traditional view of morality was far much inclined to the perception that human beings had more special inherent moral characteristics and the fact the being is human. Rachels forms a thesis upon Darwin’s opinion that the gradual illumination of men’s mind will disqualify the traditional view of morality as a mere fallacy. To provide a basis of the fallacy Rachels demystifies this referring to later works of Darwin: the descent of man (1871) and the expression of the emotions in man and animals (1872). The underlying explanation to this works and which Darwin wanted to elucidate
…show more content…
This argument is based on more concrete facts that there are more differences and similarities between humans and non-humans. Therefore the rejection of speciesism is attributable to an historical continuing process. In the first stage traditional morality was accepted due to the general world view and acceptance. In the second stage the earth revealed not to be the Centre of the universe as such its special treatment lost meaning and Darwin sums that humans as well as animals are of the same order. Thirdly, the world view on morality having lost meaning on morality it calls for reexamination. Only will it sound firm if new support will be staged as solid morality cannot be overturned

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Better Essays

    Contribution TMA06

    • 1151 Words
    • 4 Pages

    'Humans have evolved to be fundamentally distinct from other animals'. Critically evaluate this claim drawing on evidence from Chapter 2 and 3 in Book 2.…

    • 1151 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    The first premise of his argument was that all human and non-human animals possess equal inherent value because they are all individuals experiencing life. His second premise is that possessing inherent value demands that these individuals have rights that should not be violated by others. The final premise of his argument is that any individual with rights must be treated equally and with respect. In this paper, I objected to his third premise by arguing that we humans should not interact with animals at all because we are not able to distinguish their perception of equality and…

    • 990 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In the article “A Change of Heart about Animals” by Jeremy Rifkin, behavioral scientist Stephen M. Sivy poses an important question all individuals should contemplate. “If you believe in evolution by natural selection, how can you believe that feelings suddenly appeared, out of the blue, with human beings?” The human race is not significantly different to the point where we must distinguish ourselves from alternative species. Many people seem to be under the impression that animals exist solely to serve our intentions, regardless of the detrimental effects they undergo. We as humans tend to classify ourselves to be at the top of the species hierarchy due to our moral compass and superior intellect.…

    • 518 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Biology 4.1 Summary

    • 1206 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Humanist manifesto 2: Science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary…

    • 1206 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Donna Haraway's Analysis

    • 1520 Words
    • 7 Pages

    From a religious perspective, some argue that early Christian views created the first sense of human-nonhuman divisions with the claims that men and women could not be animals since humans are the image of ‘God’. However, according to Linnaeus’ taxonomy and later confirmed and elaborated by Darwin, there was acknowledgment that humans were animals. Richard Ryder, a member of the Oxford Group, which is centered on animal rights, claimed the “full awareness of our kinship with other animals was ‘intermittent’ and became “discouraged by the Church” (Yates PT 1: Human Supremacy: Constructing the ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’ Sides of The Species Barrier). Moreover, the Church explained that ‘God’ said himself in the Bible to “be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it” (Aitken). Thus began “Man’s ‘dominionism’ over and above creation” and human supremacy is favored (Yates PT 1: Human Supremacy: Constructing the ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’ Sides of The Species Barrier). From a philosophical perspective, many philosophers can claim that human supremacy is justifiable. Francis Bacon, a 17th century philosopher, declared, “Man was at the center of the world” (Yates PT 1: Human Supremacy: Constructing the ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’ Sides of The Species Barrier). He continued to argue that if it was not for human control of the natural world, “all would go astray” because there would be “no purpose” and “no aim” (Yates PT 1: Human Supremacy: Constructing the ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’ Sides of The Species Barrier). Rene Descartes, another great thinker, also believed in human exceptionalism. He supported his claim by cutting both nonhumans and humans, and saw that each contained blood vessels, organs, tissues, etc. He concluded that the reason non-humans differed from humans is that they lack thought (Yates PT 1: Human Supremacy: Constructing the ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’ Sides of…

    • 1520 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Yet they are unable to utilize it properly, and because of this they are still considered the lower animal. This trait is a human 's ability to perceive morality. There are a couple of instances where he speaks about the moral sense. First, he compares a human and a cat. He says, "cats are loose in their morals, but not consciously so. Man in his descent from the cat, has brought the cat 's looseness with him but has left the unconsciousness ' behind-the saving grace which excuses the cat." (1249). He distinguishes that a Human has the ability to choose, but a cat does not. The other instance takes up a good portion of the essay. He expresses about the moral sense: "the ability to distinguish good from evil; and with necessarily, the ability to do evil; for there can be no evil act without the presence of consciousness of it in the doer of it." (1252). He once again explains that humans have a choice while the higher animals do not. Therefore, humans are still the lower animal because of the choice to do…

    • 864 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Rhetorical Devices

    • 1472 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Perhaps the most important rhetorical aspect of each paper is the overall structure and order of the author’s ideas as they present their opinions and their purpose to the audience. Throughout Speciesism and Moral Status, Singer presents his information in a very specific way, beginning with the controversial statement that not all humans are above animals, and that there should be a…

    • 1472 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Kyle

    • 2385 Words
    • 10 Pages

    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 the 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 Animals.…

    • 2385 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Sebios

    • 664 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The article is all about the critical responses of David Schmidtz to Paul Taylor’s arguments for species egalitarianism. The first response he presented is all about our respect for nature. According to Schmidtz, in having a moral standing, at least there’s a command for respect and simply realizing something as more than a mere thing. Upon recognizing that all species command respects, he then critically asks if there is a good reason for us to believe that all species command equal respect. In this response, Schmidtz wanted to try to explain why in the first place other species command respect and at the same time why they also do not command equal respect. Our awareness of respect for nature is just what we give much importance rather than species egalitarianism. However, for Schmidtz, our sense of respect for nature only motivates us to accept and embrace the species egalitarianism. But this also doesn’t mean that species egalitarianism is necessary for us to respect nature. The question of Schmidtz about the species egalitarianism’s compatibility to our respect of nature highlights this first response he presented to us. The second response is about the grounding of species egalitarianism wherein according to Paul Taylor, the grounding of the species egalitarianism is biocentrism. It also actually presents its four beliefs that form the core of the biocentrism. However, Schmidtz always criticize these beliefs especially when it comes to comparing human species to non-human species because according to him we humans do not have the same kind of value as non-humans. Major critics of these beliefs necessarily reject the last belief. The third response to species egalitarianism is the critical question of Schmidtz about the hypocrisy of species egalitarianism. This is due to the inconsistency of the major advocates of the species egalitarianism. The inconsistency happens when these advocates of species…

    • 664 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Morality is a uniquely human characteristic. As it is something we have created but cannot touch. We can assume it is housed in the inner workings of our mind. Morality moves us to action, but we must first determine its origin. The mind has the…

    • 653 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    An argument for extending the principle of equality beyond our own species is simple. It amounts to no more then a clear understanding of the nature of the principle of equal consideration of interests. This principle implies that our concern for others ought not to depend on what they are like or what abilities they posses. It is on this basis that we are able to say that…

    • 759 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Choosing what morality is determined by, may be the problem in its own-self. Great men have contemplated where morality really lies, though many of them have took another's work to serve as the guide to strive for their own progression. Through the progression of these studies one can conclude that happiness is a focal point in the works of many great men. It seems to be one of the basis of which humanity uses as their definition of morality.…

    • 848 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Nietzsche: the Conscience

    • 1568 Words
    • 7 Pages

    In his second essay of the Geneaology of Morals, Nietzsche attempts to identify and explain the origin of the conscience. He does not adopt the view of the conscience that is accepted by the “English Psychologists”, such as Bentham, J. Mill, J.S. Mill and Hume, as the result of an innate moral feeling. Rather, it is his belief that the moral content of our conscience is formed during childhood under the influence of society. Nietzsche defines the conscience as an introspective phenomenon brought about by a feeling of responsibility, in which one analyzes their own morality due to the internalization of the values of society. This definition holds the position that the conscience is not something innate to humans, rather it has arisen through evolution. In light of this, this paper will give insight into how Nietzsche reaches this conclusion, as well as what results from it. In order to do this there will be discussion of guilt, punishment, the will to power and implications from society.…

    • 1568 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    When Darwin first revealed his theory of evolution, soon-to-be eugenicists were given an entirely new world view (Martinez). They realized that humans are not exempt from the forces of natural selection, and developed methods that would employ it to improve the human condition, essentially creating a new field of study. Morally speaking, in this situation, the newly born field of Eugenics can be considered a fresh, never before seen landscape with no defining features. By working as Eugenicists, individuals begin to survey their new ethical surroundings and make the first tentative decisions concerning it. This is the first step of the Moral Progress Theory (Stich).…

    • 1172 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Kant felt that humans have no duty to animals. He stated ““Animals are not self-conscious and are there merely as a means to an end. The end is man.” According to Immanuel Kant, humans have no direct duties to animals. Kant’s moral view of animals is that if it benefits humankind then the right of the animal should have no regard at all. Kant believed in science, he believed that if an animal had a scientific…

    • 1603 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays