humans have more worth or moral status than animals’ Zoë Corbyn ustralian philosopher Peter Singer’s book Animal Liberation, published in 1975, exposed the realities of life for animals in …

If there are animals that have higher cognitive capacities than some humans, there’s no reason to say that the humans have more worth or moral status simply because they are human. The …

There are important differences between humans and other animals, and these differences must give rise to some differences in the rights that each have. Recognizing this obvious fact, …

Which animals deserve moral consideration? The idea that non-human animals have significant moral status is comparatively modern. It owes much to the work of philosopher Peter Singer …

There’s a concept from philosophy that describes this evolution — it’s called humanity’s expanding moral circle. The circle is the imaginary boundary we draw around those we …

We would like to show you a description here but the site won’t allow us.

When one reads a headline such as “Peter Singer says there is no reason to say humans have more worth or moral status than animals” one expects an uplifting argument against harming …

Singer focuses on sentience alone as the basis of equality, but we can justify the belief that human beings have a moral worth that nonhuman animals do not, in virtue of specific …

Modern secular arguments for equal and exclusively human worth generally tend to follow one of two strategies. One strategy is committed to moral individualism and, accordingly, seeks to …

According to ratiocentrism, adult humans deserve moral consideration because they are rational (i.e., they act on reasons, not just on impulses or instincts).[4] Ratiocentrism has the plausible …