Jonathan glover essay
Jonathan glover accounting
Inescapably, other forms of friendship and love hold us hostage too… Narrow self-interest is destabilized. In his discussion of real cases of moral decisions about killing he draws on insights from history and literature as well as philosophy. First, why exactly would the creation of humanimals provoke outrage? We'll take a look right away. There's a problem with this paper. People are only led to believe these claims because they are taken to be essential parts of some simplifying moral package deal needed for the pro-life or pro-choice position. But what kind of philosopher had Glover become by the time he came to write Humanity, and what kind of departure does this book represent from his earlier work? Using the terms which have emerged in the literature, in the first case I am dealing with the poisoner as a 'culpable attacker', and in the second case I am dealing with him as a 'culpable cause'. That might be true as far as human behaviour goes, but it does not, by itself, satisfy our expectation that other creatures' interests are such as to merit our sympathy and respect, thereby giving us reasons to treat them in morally decent ways, whatever our desires might happen to be. Harris does not I am tentatively assuming envisage using such creatures as living organ banks. Hard edges, not complex gradations. In Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century, published in , Glover considers the psychological factors that predispose us to commit barbaric acts, and suggests how man-made moral traditions and the cultivation of moral imagination can work to restrain us from a ruthlessly selfish treatment of others. Of course, quietism is open to several further objections, but in certain respects it appears to fit Glover's commitments pretty well. People rightly care about these questions. I should have liked to have contributed an article about Jim's own work, which I admire.
I would want to cite, among others, both Socrates and Tolstoy. I want someone to make sure that it never happens again so that other people don't have to experience what our family is going through. Even if we could achieve reasonable consensus on a claim such as C, however, there would surely be stiffer challenges ahead, and Crisp's pessimism about surmounting these challenges might yet be justified.
It would be hard to see Tolstoy as an ideal husband. How to cite this page Choose cite format:. In Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century, published inGlover considers the psychological factors that predispose us to commit barbaric acts, and suggests how man-made moral traditions and the cultivation of moral imagination can work to restrain us from a ruthlessly selfish treatment of others.
Our values are not completely insulated from episodes like the hare leaping up.
Jonathan glover essay
The two more dependable are sympathy and respect for human dignity. The book was written partly because my own thinking about particular issues abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment and war had been shaped by responses to each particular issue. I won't have anything further to say about Thomas Hurka's important essay on Just War Theory's treatment of consequences, Jeff McMahan's penetrating essay on humanitarian intervention, or Onora O'Neill's sensible attack on over-refinement in research ethics codes. Neither you nor I nor anyone would prefer doing wrong to suffering wrong, since the former turns out to be the greater evil. Their concerns are rather different. But another way of describing this epiphany is that ordinary murder will be no worse than our failure to assist the distant needy. That might be true as far as human behaviour goes, but it does not, by itself, satisfy our expectation that other creatures' interests are such as to merit our sympathy and respect, thereby giving us reasons to treat them in morally decent ways, whatever our desires might happen to be.
But a theory, such as Singer's, which suggests that any well-fed person with an undonated surplus is no better than a murderer isn't going to mesh with many of the other things Glover cares about, and wishes to uphold.
I turn, in closing, to James Griffin's essay on torture which opens the volume, and to which Glover devotes the longest reply. The article below grew out of the talk I gave.
Since my body has to be buried somewhere, I have asked that it be in that place, in memory of Nikolai. We look for opportunities to demonize other humans -- Muslim women, in the case of the Hindu rapists and murderers in Gujarat in -- in order to reassure ourselves that we are free of the troubling vulnerability and dependencies of the human condition to which they, by contrast, are clearly heir.
Here Socrates and Dostoyevsky seem to inhabit the same territory. Not everyone prefers suffering wrong to doing wrong.
Jonathan glover genetic engineering
This is not to say that Crisp is optimistic about the prospects for an objectivist account of ethics. Jonathan is father to three and grandfather to one father to Ruth, Daniel and David Glover and grandfather to Samuel Glover. Koteliansky and Leonard Woolf. Not everyone prefers suffering wrong to doing wrong. I said it was Anna Karenina. I have an extra set of difficulties with such questions. Public debate about life and death issues is often, unsurprisingly, passionate. I turn, in closing, to James Griffin's essay on torture which opens the volume, and to which Glover devotes the longest reply. Peter Singer then developed a version that was based purely on interests without special reference to autonomy, but extending its scope to include non-human animals. It is almost certainly not a universal generalization, but for many of us serious evil-doing often has huge psychological costs. He points out that work on humanimals can proceed on two levels: on a microscopic level, in which human cells are mixed with animal cells, but in which any resulting embryos are not brought to full term; and a macroscopic level, in which such embryos are permitted to come to full term, and enjoy lives as living independent creatures. His approach is broadly consequentialist , though he gives significant weight to questions of individual autonomy, the Kantian notion that we ought to treat other people as ends in themselves rather than merely as means. The two more dependable are sympathy and respect for human dignity. This would be an important development, but in any case Glover's ambition seems different. At best, it might encourage an enlargement of the typical areas of study addressed by those who are interested in philosophical ethics, and a subsequent division of labour between traditional normative theorizing, which will continue to fix standards for action, practices, and institutions, largely unencumbered by facts about human psychology, and a more empirical study of actual human behaviour, which sets out to explain why we often -- sometimes spectacularly -- fall short of those standards, and to suggest ways in which those standards might get to be better entrenched in our behaviour.
based on 46 review