Cognitive Abilities

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: the act of thinking carefully about something you will make a decision about, how can we hold these standards to animals who had no input into the standards.

Singer, P. (1989). All animals are equal. In T. Regan & P. Singer (Eds.), Animal rights and human obligations (pp. 148-162). New Jersey: Prentice
Hall. Retrieved from http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/phil1200,Spr07/singer.pdf Discussion Question #2

If the primary goal of utilitarianism is to generate the greatest good for the greatest number, a secondary goal is to minimize suffering. Using at least one quote from one of the required readings, discuss the ways in which these two principles are consistent or inconsistent with each other. If you think they are consistent, provide a real or imagined example that illustrates this consistency. If you think they are inconsistent, provide a real or imagined example that illustrates this inconsistency. Complete your post by discussing whether minimizing suffering is equal to, lesser than, or more important that generating the greatest good for the greatest number.

For this discussion the utilitarianism of the greatest good for the greatest number, would be the war of terrorist and eradication of terrorist groups like ISIS, Al-Qaida and Army of God. Although I have no complications with religions and the beliefs of others, I believe that any group or organization that inflicting harm and destruction to innocent people for having different believes, should be wiped off the face of the earth. The primary and secondary goals are consistent because, by eliminating thousands to save trillions of people we would also be minimizing the suffering of innocent people. I’d even go farther as to say, that we would also discourage those terrorist group or organizations that have yet to be fully operational by using the know group or organizations as examples. I recently heard a suggestion of using a mercenary organization controlled by the United Nation to handle terrorize groups, and I whole-heartedly agree with the suggestion.