paper 1: "All Animals are Equal" by Peter Singer and paper 2: "The Case for Animal Rights" by Tom Regan. I am writing on a position paper how Singer has better reasons than Regan. I need more examples and reasons why Singer is more correct.
They appeal to logic, common sense and self-interest
1. Animals have feelings and should be well treated - everyone would agree with that
2. Animals are not as important as humans because them because they cannot see into the future and have nothing much to lose by dying compared to a human....again common sense
3. There is no moral requirement not to eat them.
This is a utilitarian argument and since most of us want to eat animal meat, it is appealing.
Content will be erased after question is completed.
Enter the email address associated with your account, and we will email you a link to reset your password.
Forgot your password?