Which is NOT one of the ways Kimmerer describes non-human animals? As teachers As rational beings As non human persons As kin
Added by Danielle H.
Close
Step 1
Step 1: The question asks which of the options is NOT a way Kimmerer describes non-human animals. Show more…
Show all steps
Your feedback will help us improve your experience
Jennifer Stoner and 81 other Psychology educators are ready to help you.
Ask a new question
Labs
Want to see this concept in action?
Explore this concept interactively to see how it behaves as you change inputs.
Key Concepts
Recommended Videos
'The APA Code of Ethics does NOT mandate that psychologists must respect: the truth people: animals: theory:'
Jennifer S.
What's in a name? Jared Diamond (1992) suggests that if we follow the naming traditions of cladistic taxonomy, then humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos should all be considered members of a single genus. Diamond proposes calling these species, respectively, Homo sapiens, Homo troglodytes, and Homo paniscus. Jonathan Marks (1994) objects to Diamond's taxonomic reasoning. Concerning the nature of humans and apes, Marks asserts that "Popular works tell us we are not merely genetically apes but that we are literally apes (e.g., Diamond 1992). Sometimes there is profundity in absurdity, but I don't think this is one of those times. It merely reflects the paraphyletic nature of the category "apes'-humans are apes, but only in the same sense that pigeons are reptiles and horses are fish.... Focusing on the genetic relations obscures biologically significant patterns of phenotypic divergence." Do you think humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos should all be classified as members of the same genus? Is there more at stake in the disagreement between Diamond and Marks than just Latin names? If so, what?
Animals are there only as a means to an end, since they are not conscious of themselves; a human being, by contrast, is an end…Hence we have no immediate duties towards animals…[Yet] if a human being is not to destroy his kindness and humanity in himself, he must be kind-hearted to the animals; for a man who acts with cruelty towards animals thereby becomes hardened even in his dealings with human beings… When anatomists use living animals for their experiments, it is certainly cruel, even though it is done for a good purpose. Since animals are regarded as instruments of human beings, it is acceptable, but this is certainly not the case when it is done for sport. Why, based on this passage, should humans treat animals kind-heartedly and without deliberate arbitrary cruelty? a.) because it is morally wrong to do so b) because although it is not morally wrong to do so, how humans treat animals is an indicator or gauge for how they will fulfill their moral duties towards one another c) because animals are living beings d) both a and c
Lauren L.
Recommended Textbooks
Psychology Openstax
Myers' Psychology for AP
Psychology
Transcript
18,000,000+
Students on Numerade
Trusted by students at 8,000+ universities
Watch the video solution with this free unlock.
EMAIL
PASSWORD