Conflicting aspects of Human nature

During Mondays class we touched upon the idea of there potentially being conflicting aspects of human nature. I was thinking that this directly tied into last weeks discussions about consuming other animals. Could it be that human nature is to eat other creatures, and also to do what we believe makes us a better person? If so the idea of killing another animal for consumption would definitely create tension, and as a result we will use cognitive dissonance to justify our actions.

Human nature?

I seems as though almost the entire class would agree that animals should have a moral status. The logic seems to dictate that killing and consuming animals would go against the moral status we apply to animals, yet I would bet some of the students in class do consume meat (myself included) So my question is, is it human nature to consume meat even if we find it morally wrong?

I am not trying to say that it is or isn't morally wrong, I have personally not come to a decision on what I believe yet, my point is just that human nature may be to eat meat anyways even if our thoughts tell us otherwise.

Response to "Patrio-country?"

I definitely believe that one can feel a level of Patriotism toward a country they were not born in. I do not necessarily believe that one could take part in extreme Patriotism toward a country they were not born in, but they certainly could feel a less extreme version. I personally know somebody who lived in Ghana for about a year, and currently identifies with anything Ghanian. She was born American, and currently lives in America, but she identifies herself with both countries. This is a real life rather than hypothetical example who feels connected and Patriotic toward multiple countries.  

Proximity Partiality

During our discussions we raised the question of when partiality was acceptable. I believe that partiality is not only acceptable in certain situations, but also that it is essential in humanity pursuing a better world. Because we as humans are not capable of reaching out to every single person on the planet and treating them with the utmost care, it is only logical that we give this special care to the people we are closest to. The key to this is that we never do it at the expense of those not within our inner circle. example being if there is a child next door that does not have a coat, or a child in Russia that does not have a coat, we should help the child next door first. The exception to this rule is if by giving the child next door a coat will cause further suffering to the child in Russia, ex/ child labor ext.. If the entire world operated under these conditions everyone would be able to receive special, personal care and nurture, whereas if we did not have partiality to those around us, and we chose to just treat everyone exactly the same, it would be hard for anyone to receive great care.  

Changing DNA

We have debated whether our characteristics are built into our DNA, or if they are developed based on our surroundings. While making this debate we have worked under the assumption that if we choose the nature side, our nature is set and stone and can't be affected. There are current theories and studies that show that perhaps our DNA can change due to our surroundings. This could potentially be the bridge that links the two sides of the debate together.

Response to Elizabeth Pitroff

One thing that Pinker does not mention in his twin studies are cases where the twins are separated at birth. When two identical twins are separated at birth and they do not know each other growing up, they tend to be very similar even if raised in different environments, however when two non identical twins are put in the same circumstance they do now show as many similarities. This would definitely support the nature side of the debate.