Levels Tought:
Elementary,Middle School,High School,College,University,PHD
Teaching Since: | May 2017 |
Last Sign in: | 185 Weeks Ago, 1 Day Ago |
Questions Answered: | 27237 |
Tutorials Posted: | 27372 |
MCS,MBA(IT), Pursuing PHD
Devry University
Sep-2004 - Aug-2010
Assistant Financial Analyst
NatSteel Holdings Pte Ltd
Aug-2007 - Jul-2017
Singer argues that there is no moral justification for denying moral consideration to animals. Can you think of a good moral reason why our moral consideration should include all humans, even those without the ability to reason yet denied to all non-human animals (some of whom have that ability)? What response might he have to your way of drawing the line between the types of beings that should get moral consideration and those that should not?
Please use these references with in text citations:
Singer, P. (1989). All animals are equal. In T. Regan & P. Singer (Eds.), Animal rights and human obligations (pp. 148-162). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Retrieved from http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/phil1200,Spr07/singer.pdf
Â
Regan, T. (1985). The case for animal rights. In P. Singer (Ed.), In defense of animals (pp. 13-26). New York, NY: Basil Blackwell. Retrieved from http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/regan03.htm
Â
Â
----------- He-----------llo----------- Si-----------r/M-----------ada-----------m -----------Tha-----------nk -----------You----------- fo-----------r u-----------sin-----------g o-----------ur -----------web-----------sit-----------e a-----------nd -----------acq-----------uis-----------iti-----------on -----------of -----------my -----------pos-----------ted----------- so-----------lut-----------ion-----------. P-----------lea-----------se -----------pin-----------g m-----------e o-----------n c-----------hat----------- I -----------am -----------onl-----------ine----------- or----------- in-----------box----------- me----------- a -----------mes-----------sag-----------e I----------- wi-----------ll