Hans Jonas Theory Humans

Hans Jonas was a German-American philosopher of Jewish descent. Jonas studied under Husserl, Heidegger, and Bultmann. In 1933, when Adolf Hitler took power, Jonas left Germany and went to Palestine. Jonas was interested in the movement, the Zionists, but then left it. Jonas moved to Canada in 1949. Jonas taught in Montreal and Ottawa in Canada, and from 1955 lived in the United States. Jonas published a book entitled Das Prinzip Verantwortung. Tlersuch einer ethic fur the teclznalogisclze: civilitation (principle of responsibility). Experiment of an ethic for technological existence in 1979. Jonas developed his ethics by looking at the entire history of western philosophy as follows: The human condition, determined by human nature and the nature of reality, is essentially permanent. On the basis of the human condition determined by human nature and the nature of reality, what is good for humans can be determined easily and clearly.

The range of human action, and therefore human responsibility is very limited. According to Jonas, these presuppositions no longer apply today, and therefore we need a new ethic. Hans Jonas's thoughts on responsibility in science and technology (IPTEK)
Hans Jonas contributed to the identification of ethics as a reflection on the principle of responsibility and a method of saving nature and humans. First, the ethics of responsibility describes the long-term consequences of technological actions. Knowledge of predicting the future cannot be certain, but here Jonas is sure that humans have perceptions and imaginations about the future, especially in bad terms. Jonas calls this knowledge of bad things the fear heuristic. Here Jonas provides a solution for responsibility in technology ethics in particular, namely that humans must have an imagination to imagine the long-term consequences of implementing technology that have implications for the future. Then build feelings that are in accordance with what humans imagine, for the possibility of bad things usually make humans feel afraid and from those feelings humans can build motivation to take real action to respond.

Second, the ethics of responsibility prioritizes negative predictions over positive predictions. The reason Jones said this is because technological development always brings results that are difficult to predict, technological development occurs so fast that there is no time for reflection or correction, and then to maintain the legacy of biological evolution because the existence of technology impacts the existence of biological evolution which is threatened with extinction.
From this, Jones pays attention to the possibility of the highest ugliness situation for humans, according to him "humans can live without the highest profit, but not with the highest evil". Jones and other humans certainly hope that technological developments do not destroy human existence itself, which because human existence is a form of responsibility.

In short, responsibility for the future cannot be based on the principles of justice and the rights of future generations. depending on the rights in question. But a subject that doesn't yet exist, also doesn't have rights because it doesn't exist yet. Likewise, we are certainly not bound by an obligation to be grateful because future humans have done nothing for us. Through these considerations, it can be concluded that the obligations towards humanity in the future cannot possibly be reciprocal, based on equal rights, based on justice. Precisely because of that the notion of responsibility is an attitude that is not reciprocal. If we feel responsible, it's not because we have to reciprocate, or because 'they' have rights or so on. Rather it is solely because the object invokes our feelings of responsibility. There is no obligation to be responsible, but dealing with objects we feel responsible. Simply because the object is in a state of need and weakness.
According to Jonas, for future ethics such a situation must exist. What he wanted was that 'bad fortunes should be given priority over good ones'. The possibility that our present lifestyle could destroy humanity's future beats the possibility that it would not. If there is a risk, the risk is absolute to end. Even if not certain, the mere risk that human lifestyles could cause a global economic crisis is sufficient to ethically require that we be willing to make changes. And with that in mind, based on the principle of responsibility, we are obliged to change our current lifestyle and economic pattern. It seems that the essence of the principle of responsibility is the ethical belief that 'humanity is absolutely necessary to exist'. Care is related to the environment the same way we care for others. Because humans in the future also need help through our current way of life.

In addition, Hans Jonas' ethics is known as the ethics of concern for the future. Hans Jonas argues that the human lifestyle can threaten the continuation of human life in the future. The lifestyle in question is human effort to fulfill their needs and efforts to overcome their limitations. The way humans meet their needs and overcome their limitations is by creating technology, but today humans can no longer control technology, so there is concern and fear that technology can destroy nature and kill humans. Has Jonas emphasizes an attitude of responsibility for the integrity of human conditions in the future. He invited everyone to think about the future situation. He invites people to have an attitude of fear by imagining the horrors of the future. Therefore, humans today must change the way of life