Singer argues that there is no moral justification for denying moral considerati

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 be 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?
I thought that maybe this video might provide some context for our discussion, since the state of animals IN NATURE is relevant, don’t you think? How do the lives of animals in the hands of humanity – even those in “factory farms” – compare with the lives of animals “in nature”?
Last Feast of The Crocodiles (Part 3 of 4) (Links to an external site.)
(Links to an external site.)

The post Singer argues that there is no moral justification for denying moral considerati appeared first on homework handlers.
 
“Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!”
The post Singer argues that there is no moral justification for denying moral considerati first appeared on Homework Handlers.