white
pink color
green
yellow
blue
blue
red
yellow
pink color
white
green
For more infomation >> Деление квартир на студии в Тюмени. Идея для бизнеса 2018. - Duration: 6:06. 
For more infomation >> Star Wars: Alle Waffentypen des Star Wars Universums [Legends] - Duration: 12:54. 
For more infomation >> Как понравиться мужчине? Секреты мужской психологии. - Duration: 12:34. 
For more infomation >> Darren Criss Talks The Assassination of Gianni Versace - Duration: 5:08. 
For more infomation >> The "Leave Him Alone Guy" Sticks Up for Lindsey Graham - Duration: 3:28. 
For more infomation >> ZOMBIE CRISIS Game Play (Android & iOS) - Duration: 10:44. 
For more infomation >> Mein YouTube Channel Vorstellungsvideo - Duration: 2:40. 
For more infomation >> Shane Dawson dancing to songs that go for 4:20 minutes - Duration: 4:21. 
There's quite a lot in "Science in the Soul" about
the ethics of the way we treat nonhuman animals.
I say non-human because, of course, we are animals, we are not plants, we are not fungi, we are not bacteria,
we are animals.
There is a double standard
in our ethics at present, which place, which builds a wall around our own species Homo Sapiens,
which is rather un-evolutionary, if you think about the fact that we are
close cousins of chimpanzees, if you think about the fact that
we are descended from a common ancestor that lived only about 6 or 7
million years ago.
If you want to erect a moral wall around our species and say, for example, that a human embryo,
even a very beginning human embryo
—long before it develops a nervous system—
is somehow worthy of more moral consideration than an adult chimpanzee,
then there is a rather un-evolutionary viewpoint.
If you look back in our ancestry, at what point would you draw the line? Would you give... If there were
Australopithecus —almost certainly our ancestor
Australopithecus of 3 million years ago— if you were to meet one if one had survived in the African jungle,
would you give it the same moral consideration as
the rest of us, or would you say "No, no —that has the same moral consideration as a chimpanzee"?
If we look back in history,
a couple of centuries ago most people accepted slavery
and nowadays, of course, that's a horrifying thought.
No civilized person today accepts slavery.
And if you look back further still we had the appalling things that the Romans were doing in the Colosseum
with spectator sport, watching people killing other people or lions killing people,
regarding it as fun entertainment to take the children out to.
We're certainly getting better, as Steven Pinker has said in his book "The Better Angels of Our Nature"
and Michael Shermer has in his book on "The Moral Arc"
So we're changing a lot, and it's
sort of fairly obvious thing to do to look into the future and say "What will our
future descendants think when they look back at us the way we look back at our
slave-owning ancestors with horror?
What will our descendants look back in our time?" And I think the obvious candidate would be the way we treat
non-human animals.
My view would be that we want to avoid suffering
therefore the criteria would be "Can this creature suffer?" This is the criteria that
Jeremy Bentham, the great moral philosopher
laid out:
"Can they suffer?" There's every reason to think that
mammals at least,
and probably many more, can suffer perhaps as much as we can pain.
Think about what pain is for, biologically speaking,
pain is a warning to the animal: "Don't do that again". If the animal does something which results in pain
That is a kind of ritual death. It's telling the animal, "if you do that again
you might die and you might fail to reproduce".
That's why natural selection has built pain into our nervous systems, built the capacity to feel pain
into our nervous systems. So
don't mess around with hornets because it's painful;
don't do that again.
Don't pick up burning coals from the fire; don't do that again.
There's absolutely no reason as far as I can see why a nonhuman animal
a dog or a chimpanzee or a cow, should be any less capable of feeling pain
than we can, when you think what pain is actually doing.
Pain feels like something primitive, feels like something
like seeing color or smelling a rose or something like that.
It doesn't feel like the kind of thing for which you need intellect.
And actually, we can go even further than that, you might say —since pain
is there to warn the animal not to do that again,
an animal which is a slow learner, an animal which is not particularly intelligent,
might actually need more intense pain in order to deter it from doing that again
than a human who is intelligent enough to learn quickly
not to do that again.
So it's it's even possible that non-human animals are capable of feeling more intense pain
than we are.
I'm not sure how far I want to push that argument,
but I think at least I could say there's absolutely
no reason to suppose that they feel less pain than we do and we should give them the benefit of the doubt
Đăng ký:
Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét