week 2 DQ 1&2 Essays
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 …show more content…
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