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.
Regardless of the perspective held, it is intuitively known from observation that each person thinks differently than another human being. Although a human being may have learned from the environment around them, this particular being has the ability to take this information and shape thoughts around this knowledge. A person has the ability to access his or her own private knowledge, that no other being or the community itself has access too. The ability a human being has to develop unique thoughts and has the privilege of accessing them makes them an individual because they are like no other being. They can create their own
Is it how one’s peers perceive an individual or can it be interpreted as how one perceives themselves. Maybe it’s how one reacts to the choices that they are given in life. Can it also be interpreted as how one appears and presents themselves toward the world. In the story of Bisclarvet by Marie de France it makes one question can someone still be human if they turn into a wolf? The first occurrence that makes one question whether being human is due to how one perceives themselves or how one’s peers and society choose to view them.
I read about the killings, accidents, and massacres, and yet I believe that humans are good. Every day, I experience a kindness. Every day, I can see the good in people, and I can see the love that exists in the world. I am stunned by the contradiction that is human existence. Death wants to know how the same thing can be so ugly and so glorious; I want to know as
Can we achieve an objective understanding of reality? Is there a single truth or a universal morality? These are question essential to the the thesis of many philosophers. Humans are naturally curious creatures who are irritated by not understanding something. Many people turn to religion for an explanation of the unknown or the unexplained; others turn to their own intellect.
Why are we who we are? Or more importantly, why are we human? Why does humanity act, think, work, live the way that it does? This question can be difficult to answer, yet the majority of people agree that the answer to this question lies within the idea of the human condition. The human condition is a philosophical idea, which revolves around figuring out what makes humans human.
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.
Being human is not always about if we have skin, or bones, or even the ability to talk to one another. Many different animals all have these things but we have different names for them, and none of them are ¨Humans¨. Humans, just like animals, have a brain, but our are more complex than others. Our brain connects everything; it's like the motherboard of a computer, we can't function without it. Humans are giving the ability to make memories and remember them later on.