The Ties between Humans and Animals and Moral Implications of Darwinism - Assignment Example

 Liberal studies and sociology Is it the connection to a human being and human life that gives an animal a special status in our eyes? Animals and humans share a relationship that is not only unique but also powerful that has existed before even domestication took place. Furthermore, this relationship has not only been mutually beneficial but also dynamic in nature (Natalia, 2). The result is that this relationship has not only had a profound influence on the human culture, but has also affected the human physiology as well as the emotion. On the other hand, it has also affected the behaviors of animals as well as their biology. According to anthrozoologists, a study of the bond between animals and humans has shown that we as human beings play a great role on how much will love the animals. The connection between a human being and the human life to that of an animal is very key in the human animal relation and the status that the animal finally acquires in the end (Natalia, 3). With the evolvement of the human anthropomorphosis to levels beyond domestication for food, the role of animals as companions has set in. This has resulted to animals that are usually referred to as pets being accorded high status in the eyes of their keepers. With the emotional, psychological and physical attachment between the humans and their pets comes the lovely care and treatment towards these animals that in the normal situation would not be there (Natalia, 4). Kook was a special gorilla, who was considered an exceptional animal by the owner because of his ability to communicate effectively with humans. The truth of the matter is Kook was no exceptional gorilla than the other gorilla in the wild; the difference was the bond that formed between him and his owners which made them pet and care for him in special way. As he responded to this kind of care, he developed a way of showing it to his human companion, a chance that the gorillas in the wild does not have. As kook responded to the care afforded by his human owners the emotional, psychological and physical attachment deepened, the end result was that Koko acquired the status of being the special gorilla with the ability to effectively communicate with humans. In conclusion, it can be wisely concluded that the connection to a human being and human life gives an animal a special status in our eyes, as we have seen in the example of Kook, the special gorilla, while other gorillas would be seen as wild crude, this is said to be special because it can communicate to the owners as a result of the close bond that has developed between them. Work cited Natalie, Punt. The bond between humans and animals. 30 December 2013 web. 03 May 2014 Would Rachels’ conception of moral individualism support programs like affirmative action? In his moral individualism theory, Rachel asserts the notion that Darwin’s theory indeed undermines traditional values especially the belief that the human life is not only unique, but also very special. Even though Rachel is a Darwinian, he has taken the task of doing that which many Darwinian have avoided for a long time. While Rachel does agree with those who maintain that Darwinism is so to speak morally pernicious (Rachels, 5). He thinks it something that should not be resisted, but it should be welcomed. According to him, the argument that human life is not important does not necessarily leave humans morally adrift. It only show that a different anchor is needed, one which is different and better. Just like Darwin, argued that the origin of species is a long one, the same goes for Rachel in argument that the explanation that Darwin theory undermines traditional values. But he goes on to summarize his argument as follows. According to him, the special and moral category in which human beings belongs is the dependent factor for traditional morality. He goes on to state that protection of humans as well as their rights is primary purpose of morality because the human life is special with a unique value compared to the non-human one (Rachels,66). This argument is supported in the traditional morality case by the notion of man being made in God’s image and the rationality of man. According to Rachel, Darwinism does not support human dignity because it undermines the idea of God’s image in man’s creation order, and also denies that humans are unique in the sense that they are very rational (Rachels, 100). In the place of human dignity that Darwin has omitted in his theory, Rachel has offered a different doctrine, one which he is referring to moral individualism, a doctrine that he argues in line with evolutionary outlook. In this doctrine or theory, Rachel argues that being human should not be the basis upon which one is accorded special consideration, special treatment should come with one’s particular characteristics instead of relying on one’s grouping even if it is the human group. In addition, Rachel goes on to state the consequence of having a moral individualism in place as opposed to human dignity (Rachels, 175). In his view, adopting moral individualism over human dignity will result in the death of the superstition by which human life has always been treated with in the traditional thought system. Also, he states that the indifference to non-human life will cease as the value attached to the human life will be lowered and that attached to nonhuman life elevated. The end results in his view will a strong and rational morality in which the assumption of man’s specialness is asserted. In conclusion, whether or not Rachel’s conception of moral individualism supports programs like affirmative action is a question that can be answered with a no. Rachel’s argument or theory does not seek to assert the opinion of a minority or a majority but rather he is seeking to advance his own theory that does not only support Darwin’s lack of respect for human dignity, but is also way out of line, therefore it cannot support any affirmative action. Work Cited James Rachels. The Moral Implications of Darwinism. NY: USA. Oxford press. Print Can a person be happy and not have a fulfilling life? What would this life be like? Happiness is an emotional state where one experiences the joy and they feel that they are alive the moment is pleasant. But this can be just fleeting, temporary and elusive state that does not last long. In a bid to obtain happiness, people often take a distorted version of shortcuts thereby indulging in activities that tend to make them feel good at that particular moment over what can bring long term nourishment. Fulfillment goes deeper than happiness, it is the sense of a well-lived life, that does not necessarily stem from the good moments that we have in life, these sense of feeling has its source in all the life events that we have had weather good or bad, and the resulting sense of achievement that the situations have compelled us to achieve (Karen 2). While seeking happiness and being happy is not wrong, it should not be the ultimate goal, one should view happiness in the lens of a rainbow, and you will realize that happiness is just but one color in the rainbow of life. However, fulfillment is like the rainbow of life. So if one holds on to happiness, then one will miss out on the rich experiences of fulfillment. Fulfillment is not a straight path; it comes with joy, loves, passions but also in the package is disappointments and grieves. In life time, when all is done the only things we will remember are the ones that we fulfilling, not the ones that brought happiness (Karen 3) Therefore, it can be said that it possible to happy but not fulfilled, and this is usually the case with many people who usually go for the things that bring them instant gratification but leave out the things that bring a long lasting sense of achievement or accomplishment. This kind of a life of happiness without fulfillment is the kind of where when all is done, no person who lived cannot look back and say that for sure what I did was worth the effort. No drunkard looks back at the end of his life and that he truly drank to fulfillment. Work cited Karen Kimsey. Happiness is Overrated...Try Fulfillment. 30 December, 2013 web . April 30, 2014 from Read More