In this paper I will explore the ways in which humans identify moral agency and how it affects their treatment of other beings. I will make the argument that the treatment of others based on one’s interpretation of their moral agency is arbitrary and wrong. To begin I will start with a discussion of what characteristics moral agency are comprised of and what it means to humans, followed by an analysis of how these attributes are manifested in different beings and how it affects their treatment by humans, particularly the ways in which species are dehumanized and morally disengaged from in the absence of an interpretation of moral agency. In order to understand exactly what constitutes moral agency, a dissection of the interpretation of agency
…show more content…
However, dehumanization has widely been denounced as wrong, which is not the case with animals. Historical examples of dehumanization and moral disengagement will be examined to shed light upon the dangerous discourse which surrounds the degradation of a human’s moral status and determine the motives of the dehumanizers. Samuel Morton was a natural scientist who published a work called Crania America in 1839 which consisted of measurements of the skulls of different races and generalizations of the characteristics each race possessed (Menand, 2002). Morton placed Caucasians at the top of the hierarchy for having the highest intellectual capacity, and Africans at the lowest place, stating that they “present a singular diversity of intellectual character, of which the far extreme is the lowest grade” (Menand, 2002). This pseudo-scientific racism has since been debunked as falsehood, however the impact on Morton’s contemporaries caused a discourse of scientific racism to spawn (Menand, 2002). Scientist Louis Agassiz is a notable convert to scientific racism, whom suddenly became a supporter of polygenism after spending time studying with Morton, and began to lecture throughout South Carolina that African-Americans were of a separate …show more content…
Policy-makers have created restrictions on experimentation and testing on primates in many countries after protests from animal-rights activists (Vivarelli, Sapone, Canistro, Paolini, 2014). Although this is detrimental to the progress of certain scientific fields, governments have determined that the well-being of these species are more important. It makes sense that primates are a target for rights as they exhibit the most human-like characteristics of any other animal, the selection of primates as deserving of moral status corroborates my view that moral agency and its components are a mainstay in the human perception of moral applicability. Primates exhibit a level of intelligence that is substantial enough that they recognize emotion and can make moral decisions, which was discussed previously in the examples pertaining to chimpanzees and macaques. These human-like features make humans feel that they are more deserving of moral status including the right to not be used for testing in laboratories. Similar legislation has been passed in many countries relating to the treatment of cats and dogs in laboratories, which are another case in which humans have observed human-like emotions exhibited from (Vivarelli et al.,
However, dehumanization has widely been denounced as wrong, which is not the case with animals. Historical examples of dehumanization and moral disengagement will be examined to shed light upon the dangerous discourse which surrounds the degradation of a human’s moral status and determine the motives of the dehumanizers. Samuel Morton was a natural scientist who published a work called Crania America in 1839 which consisted of measurements of the skulls of different races and generalizations of the characteristics each race possessed (Menand, 2002). Morton placed Caucasians at the top of the hierarchy for having the highest intellectual capacity, and Africans at the lowest place, stating that they “present a singular diversity of intellectual character, of which the far extreme is the lowest grade” (Menand, 2002). This pseudo-scientific racism has since been debunked as falsehood, however the impact on Morton’s contemporaries caused a discourse of scientific racism to spawn (Menand, 2002). Scientist Louis Agassiz is a notable convert to scientific racism, whom suddenly became a supporter of polygenism after spending time studying with Morton, and began to lecture throughout South Carolina that African-Americans were of a separate …show more content…
Policy-makers have created restrictions on experimentation and testing on primates in many countries after protests from animal-rights activists (Vivarelli, Sapone, Canistro, Paolini, 2014). Although this is detrimental to the progress of certain scientific fields, governments have determined that the well-being of these species are more important. It makes sense that primates are a target for rights as they exhibit the most human-like characteristics of any other animal, the selection of primates as deserving of moral status corroborates my view that moral agency and its components are a mainstay in the human perception of moral applicability. Primates exhibit a level of intelligence that is substantial enough that they recognize emotion and can make moral decisions, which was discussed previously in the examples pertaining to chimpanzees and macaques. These human-like features make humans feel that they are more deserving of moral status including the right to not be used for testing in laboratories. Similar legislation has been passed in many countries relating to the treatment of cats and dogs in laboratories, which are another case in which humans have observed human-like emotions exhibited from (Vivarelli et al.,