Discussion Question #1
Singer argues that there is no moral justification for denying moral consideration to animals. Can you think of a reason why our moral consideration should include all humans regardless of their level of cognitive ability, yet denied to non-human animals simply because they have lower levels of cognitive abilities (though still higher in some cases than those of human infants and some mentally disabled humans)? 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?
To start, I don't agree that all humans (including infants and the mental disabled) should be held to moral consideration, but I do agree that animals should not be held to such standards. According to Websters definition of cognition: The mental process of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgement; Infants and some mentally disable people do not have this process when thinking. As a person gets older, they are taught right and wrong and should be held to these standards because they are more aware of their actions. I watch animal planet a lot and I remember them saying something like “if you raise a animal outside the wild, it becomes a little tamed and less aggressive”, because animals have instincts and humans have a conscious, we can not say animals have moral consideration. We are much more aware then animals and most animals are single-minded. Animal rely on primal need and humans are curious. The fact that we all are naked when born yet we cloth ourselves while animals don't, should give an idea of the differences in awareness. Now I know we have people that treat their household pets like their children. Those animals still have their instincts but also are raised with some form of training and sense of affection. Since morals is defined as: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior, and consideration is defined as:...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document