DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
PHI1630 Contemporary Ethical Problems - Shanghai Summer 2019
HTML https://phi1630shanghai19.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 54--------------------------------------------------
Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
DIR By: haoruli
Date: July 19, 2019, 2:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The topic that whether animals have rights can derive many
questions. I think it is crucial to answer the question that
should some animals have rights on the basis of complex thought?
Personally, I think the answer is ye[size=10pt]s. Animals should
have rights on the basis that they can think and feel pain.
Human beings are complex evolved creatures who are accorded
rights on the basis that they can think and to feel pain. Many
other animals are also able to think (to some extent) and are
certainly able to feel pain. Therefore, non-human animals should
also be accorded rights, e.g. to a free and healthy life and
safety.
What is more, should animals be given rights on the basis that
humans have rights? According to Darwin’s Origin of Species we
have can know that human beings are related by common descent to
all other animals. We suppose to consider animals as same lives
as human beings that have rights.
In conclusion, generally animals have rights in the sense that
human beings are animals.
Haoru Li[/size]
#Post#: 55--------------------------------------------------
Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
DIR By: Xuehuan Zhu
Date: July 19, 2019, 10:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Chris Wang yipeng link ---
>
> Does animal have rights? - Chris Wang
>
> "A common argument against recognition of the rights of farms
animals takes the following forms. Since these animals would not
be exist except for the economic interest that farmer has in
raising them, his economic interests should determine how they
oughted ti be treated" (Regan,458) I my opinion, I personally
don't believe animal have rights. First, how do you determine
rights. I believe the right are made from human beings to be as
if one had experienced it oneself. It should be a special form
of sympathetic. Therefore, when most people say how little
chickens were born and crushing in to meat balls they fell
sympathy for them, and believe animals should have rights.
Animals eat animals, human eat other animals. I do not agree
with other's thoughts of animals should be equally treated as
human. But as a human, I do feel sympathy for animals as well,
people should eat meat and need meat. Not everyone would become
a vegetarian. We should not make it be extreme. Have some kind
of animals undter suitable treatment is some kind of progress we
have done, and some are set a laws. There are animals protection
charities. Dogs and cats are treated as they should. One of the
other debating at now days is about animals testing. medical and
psychological. I understand it is unfair for the animal to try
everything for us, for we humans. But at the day when you or one
of your love get sick and need that medical achievement. All
these aninmals suffered and dead become meaningful, although
they won't be remembered. Animal rights are important and need
to be considered, human development is more important.
>
--- End Quote ---
I totally agree with Chris's idea. I also don't agree with that
animals should have rights. First, rights are match with duties.
it is hard to find what duties animals have. if they do not have
duties, they do not do anything. if they do not do the duty,
because they do not know ho to do it, how can they have rights.
if they have rights but no duty, it is easy to harm the
environment. so they do not have the right. Second is that
animals do not have self-conscious. they do not have
self-conscious, they can not use the right, especially the
positive rights. About negative rights. Usually it is the whole
society which can communicate with each other can have the
negative right. However, most animals can not communicate with
each other, or make tools, and also not all animals are
gregarious animals. It is unfair for other animals not
gregarious animals, while gregarious animals have negative
rights, but they don not. Third, every animas have different
habitats. Some rights are suitable for some kinds of animals,
but not suitable for other kinds of animals, but there are too
many kinds of animas in the world. Human even can not know all
of them. So it is unfair for animals to have not equal rights.
Also, people need to monitor and take care of the consequence of
animals did when they have rights. it is a strenuous work.
#Post#: 56--------------------------------------------------
Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
DIR By: bobbyfangxingjie
Date: July 20, 2019, 8:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I want to reply to post # 29 suggested by BaI tianyu, which
talks about if animals have rights. In the reply, he talks about
two different famous philosophers’ idea about why animals do not
have rights, and he also suggests his own questions about the
idea they suggested. In the first argument, i agree with Bai
tianyu. I believe that if we need to differentiate animals and
humans by rationality or the ability to communicate, then it
does not make sense for new born human babies or brain-damaged
patients. They do not have the ability to think, but we still
consider them as the same kind with us. The second argument
suggested by Aristotle also has some problems. However, it seems
make more sense to me, since i can still find an explanation of
the argument. According to Aristotle, he says that “Man’s
tyranny over animals is natural because his superiority as an
animal determines for him the dominant position in the natural
scale of things.” Bai Tianyu says that this can not explain the
existence of slavery, but I believe that the relationship
between animals and humans are different from the relationship
between humans and humans. As a specie, human are beyond any
other animals, whereas there are still hierarchy within humans,
just like within some other animals. For example, there might be
some leader lion in a group of lions. Therefore, I believe more
on Aristotle’s perspective.
#Post#: 57--------------------------------------------------
Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
DIR By: Zhou Chang
Date: July 20, 2019, 11:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
page 472, animals do not have rights.
I think animals do have rights. By Huff’s argument, because
animals do not have rationality and the ability to communicate,
so they are different from human and thus the use of laboratory
animals raises no serious moral questions. It is morally
important to respect life. Like our human, animals have life.
Our moral standard is not allowed to treat life cruelly.
Laboratory animals may be tortured and abused if people think
animals have no rights. Even they are not as intelligent as
human, they still can feel pain and the earth is their home as
well. It is true that animals can’t share the same rights as
human. However, any living, breathing creature has some form of
basic rights. If so, human can not harm them as cruel as they
want to because they have basic rights. However, the killing or
harm of animals may be ethically acceptable only when there are
no reasonable alternatives. For example, an animal is suffering
a incurably ill or infected by flu. In conclusion, animals do
have some basic rights.
#Post#: 58--------------------------------------------------
Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
DIR By: xzz0427
Date: July 21, 2019, 11:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree with Shuran's idea that animals should have equal rights
with human beings. She says that human beings are also a kind of
animal so that they should have empathy.
When we judge problems, often based on our own own perspective,
not from the full perspective of the problem, the Germans are
really higher than the Jewish people? Are black people really
inferior? The assumption that they were pre-implanted during the
Nazi or invasion of China in history was that "Jews are not
humans" and "Chinese not human". Only by letting them die can we
make the society progress civilization and the human
civilization to be sublimated. The soldiers who fought in the
war thought they were exercising justice and were proud of what
they had done (improving the overall quality of humanity), and
they were transformed into "messengers of justice".
Today we seem to have made similar mistakes in dealing with
animals, with humans pre-empting "the value of animals only in
the consumption we eat", but in reality "animals, especially
vertebrates, have emotional and cognitive abilities, and each
animal has the psychological activity of distinguishing other
animals".
Siyi Qiu
#Post#: 59--------------------------------------------------
Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
DIR By: Chris Wang yipeng
Date: July 23, 2019, 8:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I would say Terrorism can be ethics in some specific situation,
but most time people are unable to recognize wether what they
know is right. Deontological ethics can condemn terrorism fairly
easily, individuals have worth by virtue of their status as
human beings. Consequentialist (Utilitarian) ethics Since
consequences are they, terrorism is always justified if it
increase happiness. How do you measure the happiness, whose
benefits are more important in such circumstances. How do you
now the truth is true. We have talk about the Indian scenario in
class. I would say most people will be incite easily to become
terrorism. They could become faithful as they fight for their
own country, although you never know if you are really doing the
right thing. What you are doing now is just taking down the
current regime, nobody know what is going to be like after the
war, if it will really make most people live better. When does
terrorism become a war, and when does terrorism become
legitimate. If Nazi’s had won the WWII and take control of the
whole world now, I would say most of the people would never said
the past was done immoral. It was a small sacrifice for the
human better life. Only the Winner write the history. It like
China’s two regime after the WWII, the community stand to the
end which make our great China. But it was Chinese fight with
Chinese. The civil war was also a example, even now the
confederate flag is still outside the White House. What I mean
is terrorism and war ’s starting point should be the same, only
the one for the better result of all human beings would be
endure longer.
#Post#: 60--------------------------------------------------
Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
DIR By: Baitianyu
Date: July 24, 2019, 9:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Chris Wang yipeng link ---
>
> “Neither one person, nor any number of persons, is warranted
in saying to another human creature of ripe years, that shall
not do with his life for his own benefit what be choose to do
with it” - said Mill. I agree with Mill. Isn’t paternalism just
a way to force people. Given it a acceptable philosophy name?
How do you determine wether it is beneficial to that individual
? Human are too persist in self benefit. Most people, to be
precise. As it says on Google, examples of paternalism in
everyday life are laws which require seat belts, wearing helmets
while riding a motorcycle, and banning certain drugs. but what I
think it is a way to restrict others, it should be belong to
some other idea, but not as a individual idea of philosophy.
letting other doing things is against individual's negative
right. A negative paternalistic explanation of slavery is one
that claims that slave holders held slaves because they believed
it was in the slaves best interest or an explanation that claims
that slaves viewed their masters in a manner similar to the way
children see their guardians. which is against human right. How
do you define if a person has the ability or not that they need
others to take care of them, and to determine for them. Everyone
is born free and equal. Society has made them different, and
society has conduct paternalism for the moral and utilitarian
purpose. I believe human don't even has the real right, right
only exist when people are together, there should not be any
positive right, only negative rights make sense under a society.
Therefore I agree with Mill that Paternalism shall not hold.
>
--- End Quote ---
Chris Wang yipeng make a common about Paternalism and I would
like to make some commons about it. Chris strongly agree about
the idea which Mill hold on about paternalism and he believe
that paternalism is a way to force people, a restriction, and
against people’s right. However, I don’t agree with him. The
ideal he mentions is similar to Nietzsche’s will to power idea
that people have other intension underneath their “moral
actions.” He mentions that “Human are too persist in self
benefit” and any act that government established seems to help
people stand for a moral action is just use for restrict
people’s free will. The reason I don’t agree with him is because
his ideal basically deny people have moral intentions. Based on
Kant’s duty theory, people will find our which actions are moral
because they are rational beings and don’t what to break the
reason. Thus, when people doing moral actions, people must have
moral intension. But Chris states that we make our actions based
on our own desire and use philosophy reason for excuse. His idea
denies people have moral intension and even deny we have
rational think. What are differences between human and animals
if our actions is followed by our desire but not reason? If we
don’t support Paternalism, isn’t we deny the existence of moral,
thus any immoral actions we did is not wrong?
Baitianyu Johnny.Bai
#Post#: 61--------------------------------------------------
Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
DIR By: Baitianyu
Date: July 25, 2019, 12:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Zhou Chang link ---
>
> page 472, animals do not have rights.
> I think animals do have rights. By Huff’s argument, because
animals do not have rationality and the ability to communicate,
so they are different from human and thus the use of laboratory
animals raises no serious moral questions. It is morally
important to respect life. Like our human, animals have life.
Our moral standard is not allowed to treat life cruelly.
Laboratory animals may be tortured and abused if people think
animals have no rights. Even they are not as intelligent as
human, they still can feel pain and the earth is their home as
well. It is true that animals can’t share the same rights as
human. However, any living, breathing creature has some form of
basic rights. If so, human can not harm them as cruel as they
want to because they have basic rights. However, the killing or
harm of animals may be ethically acceptable only when there are
no reasonable alternatives. For example, an animal is suffering
a incurably ill or infected by flu. In conclusion, animals do
have some basic rights.
>
--- End Quote ---
Zhou Chang disagree about Huff’s argument about animals’ right
and he concludes that animals should have right. One opines
Chang suggests is that animals have life and we respect life,
thus animals have rights. However, does animals really can feel
pain and have rations as human? Aren’t the painful actions of
animals are caused by their nature body defense system. How can
we say animals are reasons and have ability to thinking like
human? I think it is because people consider animals have right
is because human sympathy. I don’t think the moral system can be
used in animals. The ethical system we developed is based on
rational human being but not animals. Animals cannot think like
human. Also, human and animals cannot communicate with each
other. If we state that animals have right and use the human
moral system to animals, should we treat animals as human
beings? Another reason I think animals don’t have rights human
actually have more power to control animals. Even, “any living,
breathing creature has some form of basic rights,” human
identity is much higher than animals. As the Bible mentions that
“Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over
every living creature that moves on the ground.” We are in
higher position than animals and we should rule them rather than
give them rights.
Baitianyu Johnny.Bai
#Post#: 62--------------------------------------------------
Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
DIR By: Baitianyu
Date: July 25, 2019, 12:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Abortion
Abortion is a moral problems people are hard to determine is it
morally right or wrong. The chapter about abortion introduce two
writer and explain their own argument about abortion.
Devine suggests that abortion is wrong because the act of
abortion will kill a incent person. The article states that “The
infant is member of the human species. The infant will, in due
course, think, talk, love and have sense of justice.” If we
don’t take abortion, after nine months of pregnancy, a woman
will reproduce a human being. The act of abortion will kill
infant thus kill a human being.
However, Warren who support we should have the right to
abortion states that infant cannot be consider as a human being.
She suggests that a human being should have at least one of five
factors which are “Consciousness, and in particular the capacity
to feel pain; reasoning; self-motivated activity; the capacity
to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite
variety of types, that is, not just with an indefinite number of
possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics; the
presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual
or racial, or both.” Since infant don’t have any of those
factors, infant should not be considered as human. Thus, people
should have right to abortion without any concerns.
I am more favor Warren’s idea that infant is cannot be consider
as human because infant don’t have any “signals” of human being.
Some people may argues that based on Warren’s definition of
human, people who in coma, lose their consciousness also don’t
fulfill any of five requisite and still be consider as human.
Personally, I think people who lose their consciousness still be
consider as human because they already proved they have ability
to think, act, communicate before. Based on their history of
life, we should still consider they are human, though they loss
five prerequisite to be consider as human briefly. However,
infant never proved they have any of five prerequisites, thus
they cannot be consider as human.
Baitianyu Johnny.Bai
#Post#: 63--------------------------------------------------
Re: Online Comments (You should have 4 total by the end)
DIR By: Xuehuan Zhu
Date: July 25, 2019, 9:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
“ A man’s will is good, not because the consequence which flow
from it are good, nor because it is capable of attaining the end
which it seeks, but it is good in itself, or because it wills
the good. By a good will is not meant mere well-wishing; it
consists in a resolute employment of all the means within one’s
research, and its intrinsic value is in no way increased by
success or lessened by failure.” From the passage, we can know
that Kant’s idea is that the thing it is good or not is
dependent on the thing itself, not on the consequence, or the
benefit on others, just because he didn’t do anything wrong or
the thing someone did is absolutely conditionally moral good. It
is demonstrated by “ it wills the good.” We should do what we
should do no matter what situation. This demonstrated “ By a
good will is not meant mere well-wishing; it consists in a
resolute employment of all the means within one’s research“. For
example, In daily life, if one of the best friend gets sick, and
the doctor said that the situation is not good. Then he asked
you about the situation. You lied to him for not let him worried
and let him get cure more quickly. However, from Kant’s idea it
is not right, because you lied even if you wish someone get
better, the initial point is good. You should not lie, instead
you should telling the truth, because by Kant’s idea, you should
do something absolutely moral right, no matter what condition.
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page