000			03631cam a2200373Ii 4500
001			ocn957617025
003			OCoLC
005			20240726104740.0
008			160830s2016 nyua ob 001 0 eng d
040			_aYDX _beng _erda _epn _cYDX _dYDXCP _dNT _dOCLCF _dOCLCO _dOH1 _dEBLCP _dVLB
020			_a9780190608101 _q((electronic)l(electronic)ctronic)
020			_a9780190608088 _q((electronic)l(electronic)ctronic)
050	0	4	_aGN492 _b.W438 2016
049			_aMAIN
100	1		_aEvans, John Hyde, _d1965- _e1
245	1	0	_aWhat is a human? : _bwhat the answers mean for human rights / _cJohn H. Evans.
260			_aNew York, NY : _bOxford University Press, _c(c)2016.
300			_a1 online resource (ix, 260 pages)
336			_atext _btxt _2rdacontent
337			_acomputer _bc _2rdamedia
338			_aonline resource _bcr _2rdacarrier
347			_adata file _2rda
504			_a2
520	0		_a"The debate over what makes human beings unique has raged for hundreds of years, and many believe it is urgent to convince others to accept their particular definition of what it is to be human. Despite these dire warnings, nobody has empirically examined whether particular definitions of a human actually lead to maltreatment. In this book sociologist John H. Evans does and concludes that the definitions of a human promoted by biologists and philosophers actually are associated with less support for human rights. Members of the public who agree with these definitions say they are less willing to sacrifice to stop genocides, and are more supportive of buying organs from poor people, experimenting on prisoners against their will, torturing people to potentially save lives, and having terminally ill people commit suicide to save money. It might appear that the assumptions of critics are empirically correct. However, Evans finds that these critics are actually only partially right, and a detailed examination of the public's views reveals a much more subtle and complex situation. First, he shows that only a minority of the general public agrees with the definitions associated with less support for human rights. Then, he shows that the public has its own definitions of a human being that are unlikely to lead to human rights abuses. So while the critics are right about the definitions of a human promoted by academic biologists and philosophers, at present their concern about widespread maltreatment is overblown"-- _cProvided by publisher.
505	0	0	_a1. Introduction -- _t2. Anthropologies and Human Rights in the Academic Debate -- _t3. The General Public, Academic Anthropologies, and Human Rights -- _t4. The Public's Biological Anthropologies: DNA and Analogies to Existing Humans -- _t5. The Public's Philosophical Anthropologies: Autonomous and Social Traits -- _t6. The Public's Theological Anthropologies: The Image of God and the Soul -- _t7. The Public's Socially Conferred Anthropology: Humans Making Humans Human -- _t8. Conclusion: Reassessing the Academic Debate about Anthropologies -- _tAppendix A. Formal Statistical Analyses of the Survey Data -- _tAppendix B. Public Opinion Survey -- _tAppendix C In-depth Interviews.
530			_a2 _ub
650		0	_aHuman rights _xAnthropological aspects.
650		0	_aPolitical anthropology.
655		1	_aElectronic Books.
856	4	0	_zClick to access digital title | log in using your CIU ID number and my.ciu.edu password. _uhttpss://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=1260008&site=eds-live&custid=s3260518
942			_cOB _D _eEB _hGN. _m2016 _QOL _R _x _8NFIC _2LOC
994			_a92 _bNT
999			_c76995 _d76995
902			_a1 _bCynthia Snell _c1 _dCynthia Snell