Fukuyama identifies many different qualities as being necessary to "Factor X." Why, then, does he call them collectively "Factor X"? How do you account for the seemingly infinite number of divergent views on what it is to be human? Use your own definition of "Factor X." Using this, write a paper on what it is to be human. "The demand for recognition is the dominant passion of modernity" (Fukuyama 148). Different ethnic groups; women; members of religious minorities and nationalities; and persons with disabilities have all been demonized as 'less than human' throughout history, and according these groups fully human status is one of the greatest ideological triumphs of the 20th into the 21st century. However, although our definition of 'the human' has expanded, in most of our estimations, there are still finite limits. Some people would like to include animals into the definition of personhood, but most draw the line. We accept eating animals as a necessity, yet our ancestors viewed human enslavement also as a necessity. Although the analogy is an admittedly imperfect one, the sliding scale of 'humanness' shows the fragility in a definition which on its surface seems as if it should be quite stable and secure.

Equality is viewed as a critical component of treating all human beings with dignity and respect, but recognizing what constitutes equality is also ambiguous. In modern capitalist democracies, inequalities of income are allowed, even when they are due to inheritance rather than merit, although most would support the notion that equality of opportunities is a social...

Equality, according to Fukuyama, is instead based in a notion which he calls 'Factor X' or the concept that "when we strip all of a person's contingent and accidental characteristics away, there remains some essential human quality that is worthy of a minimum of respect -- Factor X' (Fukuyama 149). This notion has not been universally supported, at least as strongly as it is today, as manifested in literature throughout the ages referring to certain people as belonging to 'lesser races.' Infanticide of the disabled was also common in earlier cultures, although these practices are looked upon with horror today.
Even someone who does not possess his or her full physical and mental capacities is still seen as 'human' in a manner that a dog or primate is not, despite the intelligence of these species. "You can cook, eat, torture, or enslave, or render the carcass of any animal lacking Factor X" but not a human being, despite the affection we feel for many animal species (Fukuyama 150). Animals may have personalities and sensations, but they are not seen as 'like' us in the same manner, and there is not the same social, legal, and moral censure to mistreating them. A 'whole' animal with all of its faculties, no matter how beloved, is not accorded Factor X status even on the same level as a severely disabled infant.

What is the source of Factor X? "For Christians, the answer…