Thomas Hobbes - Essay Example

?Section a. Thomas Hobbes wrote about the condition of Human Nature and its consequences. In the passage, the condition referred to by Hobbes is the condition of war between man and man. In the text, Hobbes indicated several attitudes innate to human beings which potentially lead themselves to war with one another. b. Ironically, the search of equality and having been able to attain it is initially the reason why war occurs. Hobbes noted that “if any two men desire the same thing which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies” (Hobbes par. 3) considering that they only aim for it for their own conservation and delectation only. Man’s capriciousness is a threat to themselves and the desire for what others have gained in pursuit of the so-called equality without examining what can make them truly satisfied serves as self-destructive factors. Such claim could be further examined with Hobbes’s three principal causes of quarrel which are: competition diffidence and glory. The concept of the three principal causes can be associated with the example on man’s thrive to equality. In war, time hold a specific and essential role. c. Hobbes opined that time in war is as essential as time in weather. Bad weather cannot be measured with the amount of rain but the rainy days altogether; just as war where threat is not apparent in the battle itself but how long is it going to take for war to persist, because after the war, there is an assurance of peace. The state of war and argument is caused by man himself, and only he can make means to end it by making a pact or covenant in which both parties have to observe. Section 2: Question 1 “J.J. Thompson claims...” According to J.J. Thompson, abortion is not always morally impermissible. She noted that a woman must be given the right to choose whether or not the baby should live, in case that the pregnancy was due to rape. She contends that the impermissibility of abortion is a case to case basis. And because of that argument she created thought experiments to further defend her view on that matter. There are few thought experiments she presented in her essay where one is an example analogous to pregnancy due to rape and the other is based on the concept of people-seeds. The first mentioned tells about you being kidnapped. A famous violinist needs your body so that he could live and so, he is ‘plugged’ into your body by some medical tube, where it should stay there for nine months (or more). The doctor said that you have no choice because until he recovers and removing the tubes would mean killing him. In the same way, pro-life views would say that abortion of pregnancy due to rape is still impermissible because the life in the womb is innocent, the same way as the violinist is innocent. Because of this, the woman in the example, and the woman being pregnant by rape has the same situation. Thompson further asserts that if right to life is given more weight than right to choose in any circumstance, it is just like saying that the person in the example does not have the right to remove the tubes from her body because it would mean murder; and murder is always and absolutely impermissible. The second thought experiment tells about “people-seeds.” Thompson argued that unwanted pregnancy even due to voluntary intercourse with contraception gives the mother the right to abort the baby because using contraception infers that the woman does not desire to have a baby. Thompson compared it to a person who puts in mesh screens so that pollens will not be implanted. If in case a seed drifts in and takes its root, this gives the owner the right to remove it. Thompson’s arguments are direct to the point. She has clear associations which illustrate the points she wanted to express. However, she missed two points in her arguments which made her thought experiments unsuccessful. First, women have an in born motherly instinct and conscience and second, it is well documented that there is no 100% effective birth control method except for abstinence, so why take a risk if it is beyond the woman’s will to have a child? In my first point, the idea of abortion because of pregnancy due to rape may have come from the initial reaction of women to what has happened to her. Certainly, no woman wishes to have a baby in that way, but maybe in time as she will begin to accept, her perceptions would change dramatically. Furthermore, if a raped woman should resort to abortion, it is a form of ‘revictimization’ to her; a man who raped her took away her purity; while in abortion, the abortionist took away her maternity. If a woman opts to abort the child, it is not assured that she will live a sound life knowing that at some point, she was able to end an innocent life. If trauma should be in the argument, the man took the woman’s life for a few seconds and it would not be reasonable to take the child’s whole life as payment. In cases where birth control methods fail, it does not still give the right to the mother to abort the baby. In Thompson’s thought experiment about people seeds, the fetus is compared to a strayed seedling. This lacks strength in judgment because first of all, the person inside the womb is far more important than strayed pollen. Furthermore, it is proven by scientific facts that birth control methods do not assure of 100% efficiency. Even injectables which are preferred because of its high effectiveness have 0.1% of inefficiency. If the couple is not ready to take responsibility in case the slightest odds would be on them. Surely, there could be exemptions when it comes to abortion, such as a preexisting medical condition of the mother which made her unfit for pregnancy but other than that, there should be no reason to abort a fetus. Section 3: Question 2 “Carl Cohen argues...” A Carl Cohen argument on animal rights is practical. It was wise of him to define what right is and assert that when rights are given, specific obligations must be performed. Cohen asserts that animals do not have rights and should not be given one because they cannot comprehend rules. According to him, “a right, properly understood, is a claim, or potential claim, that one party may exercise against another” (Cohen 865). Clearly, animals cannot use their rights “to exercise against one another,” thus eliminating the basic foundation of what makes a right. This argument, however, does not say that people can do anything they want to animals nor to see animals as their resources and have the rights to exploit them. Cohen writes: “to animate life, even in its simplest forms, we give a certain natural reverence” (866). Should an extremist’s view on animal rights be followed, consequences must be suffered by humans. Whether people would admit it or not, animals are one of the basic resources men need in order to survive, and following an absolute right to life for animals would mean deprivation for humans. It should be remembered that meat is a source of protein; a nutrient which humans need for muscle development. As what Cohen stated, animal cruelty is not accepted as well, but the mere fact that animals lack the ability to perform a two-way relationship which every set of rights should have, animals may not be given “rights.” Perhaps, a better way to put it for the animal rights concept and Cohen’s assertion to reconcile is to have provisions instead of ‘rights.’ Since it is inevitable that humans should use animals for food, clothing, and research, rules on proper animal handling should be served and not the actual ‘right to life’ which has been fought for by animal rights advocate. In the case of research where animals are put to toxicity testing, such act is still permissible providing that the animals used in the research are not among those who are nearly extinct. Researchers should also exercise proper disposal of their subjects. The use of animals in experiments cannot be considered as ‘cruelty’ since the benefit would be for the humans themselves. The effectiveness of certain medicines experimented on humans could be a greater issue than using it on animals and it is equally labeled as harassment if such experiment would be used for humans. It is perhaps an extremist’s point of view to express that people do not need animals to survive and should treat them ‘equally’ by not seeing them as resources. Defining the extent of equality is vital in reconciling the opposing views of Cohen and Regan. Biblically speaking, God assigned the humans as stewards of his creation. Particularly on Genesis 9:1-4, God said that he allows humans to eat meat and all living creatures as their food, except for “meat that has its lifeblood still in it.” Alongside with this power over animals, humans also need to take care of their resources as how ‘stewards’ should do. Practically, people eat meat because they need them, thus undermining the absolute right to life for animals that animal rights’ advocates propose. If the right to life for animals would be exercised, certain economic changes has to occur, though it could mean imbalance in the economic flow. Food companies particularly meat suppliers, the fishing industry, micro scare restaurants, and others who use animal meat as their main product would eventually struggle and then fall off. If such thing should happen, unemployment rate would increase exponentially which could be a potential cause of declined social security (as crimes for financial gain such as robbery and theft would significantly rise). The world is so much acquainted with eating meat and using animal products that it is too impossible and unrealistic to exercise right to life for animals. Works Cited Cohen, Cohen. "The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research." The New England Journal of Medicine 315.14 (1986): 865-69. Print Hobbes, Thomas. "Of the Natural Condition of Mankind as Concerning Their Felicity and Misery." Of Man, Being the First Part of Leviathan. Bartleby.com, n.d. Web. 04 May 2011. . Thomson, Judith Jarvis. "A Defense of Abortion." Philosophy and Public Affairs 1.1 (1971): 47-66. Read More