PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
July 1, 2009Metaphilosophy285 citations

Speciesism and Moral Status

View Full Paper
PSPeter Singer

Key Points

  • The paper explores the justification for differing moral statuses between humans and nonhuman animals based on cognitive capacity.
  • Theoretical analysis of moral status based on cognitive abilities.
  • Critique of existing beliefs on the equal value of human life.
  • Proposal for a graduated value system for both humans and animals.
  • Challenges the view that all human life has equal moral value.
  • Argues that cognitive capacity, rather than species, should determine moral status.
  • Suggests a re-evaluation of beliefs regarding humans with profound mental retardation in the context of moral consideration.

Abstract

Abstract: Many people believe that all human life is of equal value. Most of them also believe that all human beings have a moral status superior to that of nonhuman animals. But how are these beliefs to be defended? The mere difference of species cannot in itself determine moral status. The most obvious candidate for regarding human beings as having a higher moral status than animals is the superior cognitive capacity of humans. People with profound mental retardation pose a problem for this set of beliefs, because their cognitive capacities are not superior to those of many animals. I argue that we should drop the belief in the equal value of human life, replacing it with a graduated view that applies to animals as well as to humans.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Peter Singer (2009) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69d9afe1e6ab964fb08361achttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.2009.01608.x
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper