points on the topic:- what is the actual importance of human beings in the world
Answers
Answer:
If you believe that being human is intrinsically important you can, if you are a subjectivist, by this mean that the property is intrinsically important for humans, i.e. human beings place a special value on being human in itself, a value which is not dependent upon what is associated with belonging to that species, and that is what makes being human morally important. Or, you may, if you are an objectivist, intend to say that being human has an intrinsic value which is independent of the fact that this is valued by us humans.
I will here concentrate on the subjectivistic defence of human dignity. One of the reasons, besides the fact that I personally find this position more attractive than objectivism, is that it is interesting to defend the idea of human dignity from a subjectivistic position when such an idea normally is rejected by the subjectivists. Now, one of the assumptions that I have made is that there is according to the Standard Attitude an intrinsic value in being human. This assumption must now be questioned. Michael Tooley gives in Abortion and Infanticide three counter-examples to show that membership of the human species has no intrinsic importance. His third argument is a thought experiment which is constructed as follows:
There might exist on some other planet, such as Mars, non-human animals that speak languages, have highly developed cultures, that have advanced further scientifically, technologically, and aesthetically than humans have, and that both enjoy sensations, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and desires, and attribute such mental states both to us and to themselves. Would it not be wrong to kill such Martians? And wrong for precisely the same reason that it is wrong to kill normal adult human beings?
First, Tooley wants us to decide not only whether or not it would be wrong to kill these Martians, but also whether or not it would be wrong to kill them for the same reason that it would be wrong to kill normal adult human beings. I believe that this is a bit tricky, since suppose you decide to say that it would be wrong to kill these Martians. Does that mean that you know also why it would be wrong? Of course not. One of the main tasks of these thought experiments is to detect what kind of reason one has for ones moral judgements. The supposition is therefore that this is something one might be mistaken about. Therefore, I suggest that we start by asking the simple question about what ones spontaneous reactions on the wrongness of this kind of killing would be.
Second, if that is what we do, we have to make sure that we concentrate on the comparative wrongness of killing these Martians and killing human beings, since the conclusion Tooley wants us to draw will not follow from the sole fact that it would be wrong to kill these Martians (which is what Tooley says), unless it were wrong to the same extent that it would be wrong to kill a human being (assuming that it makes sense to talk of different degrees of moral wrongness).
Third, there is one strangeness in Tooleys example. The Martians intellectual achievements exceed the human ones their cultures have advanced further than human cultures have. This might be an important difference, since suppose one spontaneously believes that it would be wrong to kill these Martians, equally wrong as killing human beings. This could then be explained in the following way.
Explanation:
plz mark brainliest boht time laga hai likhne mai
plz mark brainliest plz
plz rate 5 plz
I said plz mark brainliest
kaha jaa rahe ho brainliest to mark karo
aur rate karna bhi bhul gaye kya kardo jaldi rate jaldi kardo