When we began our discussion about human rights, we talked about the idea of a “right to life”. We discussed whether it can exist in a world where humans dominate all other forms of life and what determines who has this right or not. The majority of the class agreed that the “right to life” is an intrinsic right that every human being shares. The only problem is that there is more to life than humans on this earth. This topic brought to my mind some ideas that we discussed in chemistry last semester about the development of life as we know it. From a more general point of view, we can look at the time line of life on earth and when human life began. Although the planet earth itself has existed for over 4.5 billion years, human life has only been around for relatively 2 million years. Earth began with single cell organisms, then multi-cellular organisms and eventually plants and animals- THEN humans. Just based on this fact alone we see just how insignificant human life on earth is compared to the history of other organisms. I think human beings like to believe that the earth was created for them; and, therefore, they have an intrinsic right to life and the right to end life where they see fit. As it was pointed out in class, it would be so simple and even plausible that a more developed species could come into existence and take over just as human beings have done. I do think though that there is something very distinctive and unique about humans which clearly separates them from any other organism- which we have touched on- and that is our reason. However, how can this mean that we are any better or deserve life any more than any other form of life on earth? Just thought this was something interesting to think about.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Something to Think About...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you make a very interesting point. It highlights that human rights are not things which exist naturally and unconditionally in nature but instead are things that were created with and by the creation of rational humans. From this perspective, I think it's pretty clear that human rights don't exist intrinsically in nature but are instead things that developed over time just like humans.
ReplyDeleteYour point about how a new species could become dominant also fits in with this because it highlights that human rights can change over time. However, even though they can change, they are still valid at this time. At this time, humans are the dominant species and human rights are all we have to go by to maintain our society. But it is true that in a billion years, that might change.
I think your point is valid and that you are right to question our thinking. While it may be unclear whether human rights are intrinsic or not, I believe it comes down to the idea that we are the dominant species and therefore we, in a way, set the standards. Because there is not a species evolved enough to argue with our beliefs that our right to life takes priority, we more than likely will not ever address, as an entire society, the concept of us deserving life more.
ReplyDeleteI have been thinking about this myself since our discussion. Doctor J mentioned how we fight for animal rights and the environment. What if eventually this evolves into respecting literally all forms of life? I can't imagine how that would even happen,or how we would turn those ideas into action, but then again I also couldn't imagine that people would consider animals on the same level as humans, which is another idea Doctor J suggested.
ReplyDeleteThat is really interesting to me to think of a more developed species than us. It's so crazy to think of such big ideas changing in our world. And there's no way to think of just how much it would change and affect. The "what-if's" that came up in our discussions were very striking.
Since we don't actually know the evolutionary process of "respecting literally all forms of life" then its hard to say that we eventually will. There is an emotional attachment between animals and humans and most people don't sympathize with plants. We all have a right to life because we can conceptualize the idea of having a right to life. We can see it in nature among animals protecting against predators and working together in a hunt.
ReplyDeleteI always rationalized it as not necessarily the positive, a right to life, but in the negative, a right not to be murdered. Multiple people have referred to the idea that we are "more evolved" than other animals and I think one of the main points of contention is that we are able to murder for no other reason than to murder--murder being the killing of something with malicious intent. This contrasts with simple killing in that with killing there may be no malicious intent or rather a justified reason for it, i.e. self-preservation or self defense. I would extend the right not to be murdered to animals.
ReplyDeleteReading your post, I cannot help but think about the very basic reasons, why human beings consider themselves as more worthy living. Don't you agree that every species, and therefore also humans, need to believe that they are higher or more important to survive? If not, how could we justify killing in order to survive (either in defense or for food)? Let's assume some animals have something like a self-conscious: What gives the lion the right to kill an antelope, what gives the antelope the right to ”kill” another form of living, namely grass? Well, I admit, that sounds very weird, but I guess, every species needs to grade itself higher than all other species, in order to survive.
ReplyDelete