Nature versus Nurture

The primary determinant of human nature is the interaction between an individual’s genes and his/her environment. The nature versus nurture argument supports this relationship. Virtually any trait in an individual possesses results from the interaction of environmental and genetic factors. Many genes have been implicated in psychological disorders, but very rarely is one gene a single cause of a disorder. It is fair to say that many genes influence much of our development and most of our behavior, personality, and even intelligence. Specific genes are sometimes associated with certain psychological disorders such as some forms of mental retardation. Genetic endowment influences behavior, emotions, and thoughts; environmental events are necessary for this influence to be expressed.

Might our past experiences influence our view of determinants of human nature?

More on torture

After consulting http://terrorism.about.com/od/humanrights/a/TortureDebate.htm, my opinion on the "ticking bomb" scenario is slightly stronger. I agree with Luban in that no person can have absolute certainty that the individual he/she has in custody knows the location of the "ticking bomb." There is always some room for error. What if the individual truly does not have any information regarding the whereabouts or creation of the bomb? Torturing him/her is evil and, certainly, unethical.

If persons decide to torture an individual whom they believe has information that they are seeking, for how long will these persons torture their captive? If the supposed bomb isn't scheduled to explode for months, then is the person in custody likely to be tortured for months if she/he does not reveal any information?

Furthermore, if we deem torture of a person whom we believe may have information regarding the location of a ticking bomb acceptable, then might we also view torture of this individual's loved ones also permissible? Some persons may find this acceptable since it is even harsher and may elicit information. This notion creates a slippery slope of irrational and unethical thoughts/behaviors. Personally, I find it all quite sickening.

"Ticking bomb" scenario

What’s the proper response to a “ticking bomb” scenario?

When discussing the “ticking bomb” scenario, we have to consider the lives and rights of the terrorist in custody and the innocent beings that may be killed or severely injured from the bomb. We must weigh the value of each group: the terrorist and the innocent beings in the area of the bomb. Some philosophers may say that the value of a group of individuals outweighs the value of one individual; whereas, others may say that each human life has equal value. If the group of innocent beings have a higher value to society than the terrorist, then we may think that these individuals deserve to remain unharmed by the terrorist’s activities. To maintain their safety, some individuals would support torturing the terrorist for information regarding the bomb. Others may say that torture is always unethical and may never support its use. Nevertheless, torture is illegal and the officials who have the terrorist in custody would be committing a crime if they tortured the terrorist.

Do you think reported rates of torture are much lower than actual rates of torture?

Torture

I agree with Erica’s position that we must respect the autonomy of every individual. When a suspected terrorist is in custody and officials think that he/she may have information, torturing the individual may be considered a means to obtain the information needed. However, no one actually knows if this individual has such information. Secondly, if we presume that the terrorist has such information, he/she may not share it before the “ticking bomb” explodes. Therefore, if the terrorist is tortured and remains silent until the bomb explodes, innocent beings are killed and the terrorist was tortured without any benefit to society. We never have reason to torture an individual for information because there is no way that we could know, for certain, that the individual has such information.

Moral status

Moral status is based on sentience, which refers to whether a being can neurologically and physiologically suffer or experience satisfaction. Most animals are sentient beings and, therefore, humans have direct moral obligations to them. We do not yet know if insects are sentient; however, we should first focus on the sentient animals that we exploit daily, which include cows, pigs, rodents, and chickens.

Not everything that is alive is sentient. For example, plants are alive but are not capable of feeling pain. Whereas in human and nonhuman sentient beings, pain serves as a signal that helps them to escape from the source of pain to avoid death, plants do not have such a signaling mechanism. Since plants cannot suffer or experience satisfaction, they do not deserve the same moral consideration as sentient beings such as cows or chickens.

We, as humans, have duties to all sentient beings and therefore, are morally required to end all unjust treatment of animals, which includes our use of them in scientific experiments and their lives on factory farms. By attributing moral status to all sentient animals, we are also recognizing their rights; all rights are more important than interests. When humans use animals for research and testing, they are pursuing their own interests and many sick and disabled people's interests. However, since animals have rights, their rights override our interests. Consequently, we are morally obliged to end vivisection and factory farming.

To many humans, the notion that unnecessary suffering should not be inflicted on animals is commonsensical. However, not all humans agree as to what constitutes unnecessary suffering. Undoubtedly, animals should not suffer for purposes of our amusement, pleasure, or convenience. Nonetheless, billions of animals are used for food merely because many humans derive pleasure from eating them.

Animal exploitation is common in agriculture, fashion, and science. Humans kill billions of animals each year, just in the United States. Sometimes these animals live in deplorable conditions before their intensely painful deaths. They usually die without ever fulfilling their most basic desires. By ignoring their desires and forcing them to live in dreadful conditions, we are disregarding these animals' rights. These acts are anthropocentric and immoral. In such an advanced society we should exhibit more concern for this issue and enlighten those who do not share such views to encourage global recognition and societal change.

Do animals display emotions?

That's a difficult question to answer. During Monday's class discussion some individuals argued that they have seen their pet animals display certain emotions after specified events. Many people generalize the overt behaviors of certain emotions that are displayed by humans to animals. These individuals believe that if a dog is not playful, sits around the house, refuses to eat, and moans after one member of the family has left for a vacation, that the dog is sad/unhappy/depressed. All of the behaviors the dog exhibited are typical of a depressed human. But how do we really know that the dog is sad? Can we attribute human-defined emotive states to nonhumans?

The moral status of nonhumans

Since humans are moral agents, they must not cause any intentional or unintentional pain to any moral patient. A moral agent is something that is capable of exhibiting behaviors which can be classified as “right” or “wrong.” Actions that are deemed “wrong” cause pain to a moral patient. Additionally, a moral patient is an organism that is affected by a moral agent’s behavior. If a human kicks a dog it is considered “wrong” because the human, the moral agent, is inflicting pain on the dog, the moral patient.

Consequently, humans must recognize that nonhumans, as well as humans, have moral status. Nonhumans, which are usually moral patients of humans, are capable of sensing pain and fearing whatever may have caused it such pain. Nonhumans have moral status due to their ability to experience pleasure and pain. Humans need to, not only, recognize the moral status of nonhumans, but also cease inflicting pain on nonhumans.

By discussing these moral questions, are we promoting awareness of the moral status of nonhumans? Or are we changing the behavior of humans, in regards to their treatment of nonhumans?

Might some individuals assign more moral status to their pets than to wild animals?