Peter Singer, “A Utilitarian Defense of Animal Liberation” Here is a reconstruction of Singer’s Argument: P1: At least some nonhuman animals, like human animals, have interests. P2: Any being that has interests is entitled to moral consideration. P3: Therefore, any nonhuman animal that has interests is entitled to moral consideration. P4: Every genuine interest should be given the same consideration as other like interests,   regardless of whose interest it is. C: Therefore, those nonhuman animals that have interests are entitled to equal moral   consideration. Why believe premise 1? At least some nonhuman animals have the capacity for suffering and enjoyment, i.e., at least some nonhuman animals are sentient (in Singer’s restricted sense of “sentient”). Given that these nonhuman animals can experience suffering and enjoyment, it makes sense to think of their lives as going well or badly, better or worse, for them. If their lives can go better or worse for them, then they have interests, as some things are in their interest, and some things are contrary to their interests.  The capacity for suffering and enjoyment is thus a necessary and sufficient condition for having interests at all. “Equal Consideration” What exactly does Singer mean by “equal consideration”?  There are factual differences between human and nonhuman animals, which Singer recognizes.  In particular, humans have certain “higher” mental faculties that give them more varied interests than nonhuman animals.  Humans can enjoy reading a good book, for example, while nonhuman animals cannot.  Humans can also suffer more types of discomforts, like feeling anxiety over the remote future.  So some human interests are very different from any of the interests of nonhuman animals.  Equal consideration for Singer just means taking equally seriously the like interests of humans and nonhuman animals to avoid suffering and to enjoy their lives.  The Scope of the Moral Community By “the moral community” we mean everyone who is entitled to moral consideration.  Is there some feature that all humans have and that no nonhumans have that would warrant placing humans within our moral community and nonhuman animals outside of it, or that would justify our considering human suffering as morally more important than nonhuman suffering?  This is the challenge to anyone who wants to reject Singer’s argument. Here are some further clarifications of Singer’s views that may be helpful Singer does not argue that humans and nonhuman animals should be treated equally, or that they should be given the same rights.  He makes this explicit when he says (page 72), “The extension of the basic principle of equality from one group to another does not imply that we must treat both groups in exactly the same way, or grant exactly the same rights to both groups…The basic principle of equality, I shall argue, is equality of consideration; and equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights.” Singer’s principle of equality says the following: when considering the like interests of humans and nonhuman animals they should be given equal consideration.  In particular, he argues that we should count the suffering of nonhuman animals equally with the like suffering of any other being (page 75). What does this mean?  Here is an example (from Singer) to illustrate the principle.  If I slap a human baby in the face with a little bit of force, and I slap a horse on its rear with the same amount of force, then I’ve hurt the baby more than I’ve hurt the horse, and so I’ve done something worse to the baby than I’ve done to the horse. However, there is something I could do to the horse that would hurt the horse as much as slapping the baby in the face with a little bit of force hurts the baby, and these two actions are (other things being equal) equally wrong, says Singer.  The horse’s interest in not being hurt deserves equal consideration to the baby’s interest in not being hurt, when the degree of pain is the same in each case (these would be what Singer calls “like interests”).  That is what Singer’s principle of equality amounts to.  What Singer calls “speciesism” is favoring members of your own species, simply because they are members of your own species.  This is the sense in which Singer compares speciesism to racism or sexism, and he thinks that they are all objectionable on the same grounds, i.e., because it is unfair to favor members of your own race, or your own sex, or your own species, simply because they are members of your own race, or your own sex, or your own species. Singer Paper Topic Carefully explain premises 1, 2, and 4 of Singer’s argument, and how he argues for each premise. Finally, explain whether or not you think Singer’s argument is plausible, and why.  Be careful not to read more into a premise than it actually says.  Each premise says something very specific, so with each premise just stick to what it actually says (for example, premise 2 just says that any being that has interests is entitled to moral consideration; it does not say that any being that has interests is entitled to equal moral consideration.  That claim comes later in the argument). General Guidelines Your paper should be double-spaced, with one-inch margins, using 12-point font, and no longer than two pages.  Citations from the readings can be made by simply citing the relevant page numbers from the text parenthetically at the end of a sentence or paragraph. Your only sources in answering the questions should be the article and the video from Singer, and the notes provided in this document.  In particular, you should not use any secondary sources from the Internet. Your paper is due in the Dropbox on D2L no later than 11:30 pm on Sunday, February 28th. If you have any questions about the assignment please e-mail me.

Note: Developing a business proposal requires specific steps that need to be executed in a sequence. The assessments in this course are presented in sequence and must be completed in order. Preparation Pick a company or organization that you are familiar with. This can be your workplace, place of worship, volunteer workplace, or a company found from a case study from the Capella University Library or on the Web. When picking the company or organization, think about your educational specialization area, information technology interests, or career goals. Examine your organization to determine if it exhibits any of the warning signs that indicate difficulty in integrating business goals and processes. Consider the following questions as you look at your organization's business goals and processes: Do you feel the company or organization is utilizing information technology effectively? Why or why not? Does this organization have many isolated systems that make it difficult for necessary work to flow smoothly as an end-to-end process? Does this organization have difficulty sharing data with anyone in the organization who needs the data as part of their implementation of a business goal? Instructions In three pages, discuss what you have learned in your examination of this organization. Include the following: Company or organization background. Description of its business mission. Explanation of at least two business goals or objectives. At least two business processes used at the company or organization. At least two information systems used at the company or organization. Explanation of how IT systems do or do not integrate with business goals. Explanation of challenges and opportunities with today's IT systems that are relevant to business processes. Citations and references for any sources used.