Steinbock Vs Singer

263 Words2 Pages
If one were to put innate human feelings aside. Peter Singer has a better argument than Bonnie Steinbock. In the case of morality, there is no reason to deny a nonhuman equal consideration. The idea of using a nonhuman who has no ability to give consent or understand the circumstances it has been subjected to seems harsh. Since humans can be held morally responsible for their actions, there is more justice in a human consenting to necessary pain in order to save other humans. However, this argument could go on to say: if it became necessary, killing a non-paradigm human and killing a nonhuman for food should be considered equally. This being said, I do not agree with Singer completely, primarily because he does not acknowledge innate human

    More about Steinbock Vs Singer

      Open Document