Consider What Singer and or Reagan would say IN Response to their remarks discussion sociology homework help
When responding to your peers, consider what Singer and/or Regan would say in response to their remarks, think about whether what a peer calls a non-utilitarian consideration might be, after all, a utilitarian one, or vice versa, or think of strengths and weaknesses in their argument that they might not have considered. This should be done in 100 words or more.
Reagan and Singer agree that animals deserve the same moral consideration as humans. They believe that Humans are not superior to animals simply because the majority of us have higher brain function that the majority of animals. These two however have very different reasoning representing their views. Singer being the true Utilitarian takes the approach of analyzing the basic understanding that all humans are created equal. This is the foundation that we make our human rights laws. His point is there is no one characteristic that makes all humans equal. All people are different with different emotions, physical characteristics, brain power, and abilities. So the difference that I might have from a seven foot tall basketball player that graduated from Harvard could be comparable to the differences I would have from a primate. So with all physical, mental, and emotional issues created equal then animals would be equal to humans as well. This is a very straight forward and scientific analysis of the reasoning we already use to distribute “the good” throughout the world. Based on this logic “the good” would take animal suffering into consideration equally to human’s. Regan takes a more emotional approach to this question. His point is that a wrong act is a wrong act regardless of how it is used. By testing shampoo on a baby gorilla it has the same moral implications as if we did the same with an infant child. in my opinion this approach doesn’t so much apply to animal equality, as it applies to eradicating torture in all its forms. If I was to pull the legs off of an ant, even though ants don’t have a nervous system to feel pain, it would be considered the same as pulling the legs off my own child. This approach Regan uses doesn’t take into account suffering as a quantifier. With suffering being the negative attribute in torture itself how can “good” be defined if there is no recognition of bad. A utilitarian view takes into account the “greatest good”, Regan’s view applies only to acts and not how they are received. So if these “acts” are against the animals will, but create no dissatisfaction Regan would have you think of them as just the same as if the animal’s life were in danger. A utilitarian view of the same scenario would be, because there is no bad being done to the animal, the good of the product being tested outweighs the negative the animal is experiencing.
