My first paper questions our current ethical rules and the definition of humanity, concluding that both of them are overly human-centric and biased. Humanity, in fact, is a privilege we possess, and it sugarcoats and justifies our actions that we can benefit from, such as slaughtering, domestications of wild animals and colonizations of their habitats. We say we love and care them, but we do so in the ways following the human standard while neglecting their feelings and perspectives. At the end of the essay, I wonder if there is a universal ethical rule, and if it exists, given the fact that people always are not willing to take actions to change even though knowing the issues, is it possible or meaningful to change? From our discussion of
