Philosophers such as Anselm, Guanilo, and Thomas Aquinas debate the existence of God. Anselm one of the philosophers gives an example of God's presence with a comparison of God's existence to the painter's idea of the painting because the concept of the painting has always existed. In disagreement, someone could not compare the existence of God to a painter's artwork because they are not the same. Thomas Aquinas the other philosopher would argue in another way that everything that has breath for this reason God does exist. These three philosophers Anselm, Guanilo along with Thomas Aquinas present their arguments describing the existence of God, but not everyone would agree with their views.
The first topic in philosophical ethics I would like to discuss is Aristotle’s virtue ethics. As an objectionist, Aristotle tried to determine what a good person is. To Aristotle, happiness is what made you a good person, and that is what the chief goal in life is. He believed that happiness was achieved when a species determines its’ own telos, or purpose. Along with that, Aristotle determined three facts of humanity.
The inferiority of the emotional part of human identity to the rational component, an idea similar to that of Aristotelian philosophy, is depicted through the main character Aeneas and solidifies Virgil’s portrayal of the highest good in individuals. Aristotle considers the highest good of humanity as happiness. However, Aristotle does not define happiness as an emotion but instead defines it as “an activity of the soul in conformity with a rational principle” such as virtues, which are characteristics that allow an individual to perform his or her function well (Insert Citation). This can be seen in The Aeneid, where the hero Aeneas acts in a way that allows him to be able to carry out his purpose efficiently. Aeneas is the man chosen by the gods to be master of Italy and to father a great empire.
Singer argues, “human preference for humans rests on an unsupportable biological distinction vis-a`-vis all other animals”. While Tom Regan states, “that all beings who are ‘‘subjects-of-a-life” should receive the moral recognition and legal protection that rights afford”. The problem with the
Aristotle was the greatest philosopher and was an extremely educated man. He recognizes the motive of the greater than the will of the isolated human being, he gained much of his wisdom and his understanding through his experience. Aristotle believed that human happiness was the response of the human potential. These prospective can be identified by rational choice, recognition, and practical judgment. Aristotle argues that polis was a natural growth and that human being was by nature.
As the question consist of an analogical argument, so, I will divide this essay into three parts. I am going to define is that human are animals first, describe the rights we have and then using the Kant’s anthropocentric views, Peter Singer’s specialism, Tom Regan’s views on animal right and some examples, to give a full picture in order to support my stance. In my opinions, I strongly agree that all human are animals, but, there are some differences between the human and animals mentally. Thus, I agree with the statement of “animals also have rights”. However, some of the rights we have, are not capable on animals.
Numerous people have attempted to justify the use of such methods by putting down or rather, dismissing the animal as a creature lacking the mental capacities to be considered equals to that of a human being. In their book "Animal Experimentation : The Moral Issue" authors Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum say, "holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty, governing all including themselves" (104). He then goes on to explain that "animals do not have such moral capacities" (Baird 105). And as a result of this "we can't violate their rights because they have none" (Baird 105). Dismissing the animal as nothing more then an object may not seem like the most reasonable defense against the use of animals for testing
I disagree with Aristotle’s argument due to the fact that a human can find pleasure in many different endeavors throughout their life, whether it is to be rich and have all the money in the world, to have everything you want when you need it or to merely have materialistic items just for the soul purpose of having those items. Aristotle has described that one who lives their life with just pleasure is simply animalistic and irrational. For example, when Aristotle states, “For on the basis of the lives they lead, the many and crudest seem to suppose, not unreasonably, that the good and happiness are pleasure. And thus they cherish the life of enjoyment. …Now, in choosing a life of fatted cattle, the many appear altogether slavish; but they attain a hearing, because many people in positions of authority experience passions like those of Sardanapallus” (Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Book 1, Chapter 5, page
Moreover, Aristotle did not consider all inhabitants of a state as citizens; he did not think women, aliens, or vulgar people, to name a few, should be granted the rights of citizens. According to Locke, all members of a society had equal rights, except for
When I think about the concept of human equality at first I would say all humans are created equal. I think I have this idea because it is what I have always heard. However, after reading chapter two of Practical Ethics by Peter Singer I have realized that my understanding of equality has been misconstrued. According to Singer, “whatever test we choose, it simply is not true that all humans are equal” (Singer 2011, 17). To say that every person is equal doesn’t account for the obvious differences among everyone.