Time remaining:
Why are singers arguments hard to criticize?

label Philosophy
account_circle Unassigned
schedule 0 Hours
account_balance_wallet $5

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. 

Oct 21st, 2017

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.

Dec 15th, 2014

Did you know? You can earn $20 for every friend you invite to Studypool!
Click here to
Refer a Friend
...
Oct 21st, 2017
...
Oct 21st, 2017
Oct 22nd, 2017
check_circle
Mark as Final Answer
check_circle
Unmark as Final Answer
check_circle
Final Answer

Secure Information

Content will be erased after question is completed.

check_circle
Final Answer