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…
indirectly the idea of treating organisms similarly despite some differences is that both humans and animals evolved.
But to skeptics this seems to obscure their view of human being as being able to think and thus rational. The central point of communicative ability of human beings to skeptics qualified human beings to be rational. This Darwin disagrees with by saying that even animals though not having impressive communicative ability as humans, should not be disregarded as irrational as their behavior shows reason from an observatory view point. He gives an example of orangs which build platforms for habitation showing actions with reasons.
Others in favor of Darwinism crusade-Asa Gray- said that despite humans being more humane than their associates they have an obligation to respect their rights. That implied humans had to respect animals too. Gray made some remarkable points upon which his thinking would be based. The unqualified speciesism , the qualified speciesism and moral individualism. In the unqualified speciesism an example of a teacher from mars is given who despite in many aspects similar to the human students is discriminated because of his leathery skin but later accepted. The conclusion to this is that despite the skin color of blacks and whites does not provide for moral discrimination minor differences. Therefore, discrimination on species basis is only held by lions or humans treating their own with more privilege implying speciesism and racism are separate.
In the qualified speciesism the advocacy is on more differences between humans and non-humans as the basis of treatment as opposed to the rationality concept alone in non-paternalistic cases such as drug testing on animals which cannot be directly done to humans. This is similarly to rationally handicapped humans who may not be treated differently but the debate on their connection and moral normality to humans makes them to be treated alike. But this too fails because of a chimpanzee example being able to read and communicate in English but denied a college opportunity.
Finally, of more importance is treating individuals based on their unique intrinsic characteristics which may deviate from the logic of species and morality.
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
overnight.
In conclusion, the fourth stage of this process will be reached if a new dimension of non-prejudiced morality allowing coexistence of our understanding of the world and our place in it is attained.
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…
indirectly the idea of treating organisms similarly despite some differences is that both humans and animals evolved.
But to skeptics this seems to obscure their view of human being as being able to think and thus rational. The central point of communicative ability of human beings to skeptics qualified human beings to be rational. This Darwin disagrees with by saying that even animals though not having impressive communicative ability as humans, should not be disregarded as irrational as their behavior shows reason from an observatory view point. He gives an example of orangs which build platforms for habitation showing actions with reasons.
Others in favor of Darwinism crusade-Asa Gray- said that despite humans being more humane than their associates they have an obligation to respect their rights. That implied humans had to respect animals too. Gray made some remarkable points upon which his thinking would be based. The unqualified speciesism , the qualified speciesism and moral individualism. In the unqualified speciesism an example of a teacher from mars is given who despite in many aspects similar to the human students is discriminated because of his leathery skin but later accepted. The conclusion to this is that despite the skin color of blacks and whites does not provide for moral discrimination minor differences. Therefore, discrimination on species basis is only held by lions or humans treating their own with more privilege implying speciesism and racism are separate.
In the qualified speciesism the advocacy is on more differences between humans and non-humans as the basis of treatment as opposed to the rationality concept alone in non-paternalistic cases such as drug testing on animals which cannot be directly done to humans. This is similarly to rationally handicapped humans who may not be treated differently but the debate on their connection and moral normality to humans makes them to be treated alike. But this too fails because of a chimpanzee example being able to read and communicate in English but denied a college opportunity.
Finally, of more importance is treating individuals based on their unique intrinsic characteristics which may deviate from the logic of species and morality.
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
overnight.
In conclusion, the fourth stage of this process will be reached if a new dimension of non-prejudiced morality allowing coexistence of our understanding of the world and our place in it is attained.