Assignment task:
Peter Singer's work on animal rights revolutionized the field. He simply applied Utilitarianism to animals: if pleasure is good and pain is bad, then harming animals is wrong for the same reasons that harming humans is wrong. Of course, in both cases everything depends on one's reasons for inflicting the harm. Some people accept this approach and put all animals on an equal footing. Others cannot shed their prejudice toward the human species. Others cannot shed their prejudice toward pets. In any case, the issue is a good test of one's intuitions about morality.
First part: Which of the following strikes you as most correct? a) All animals have the same rights. b) All highly conscious animals have the same rights (e.g., animals that can experience fear). c) All well behaved (domesticated) animals have rights or require special protection. d) Animals should generally be well-treated but can be used for life-saving medical research. e) Animals don't have rights but should not be mistreated. f) Animals don't have rights and can be "violated" for special sports, e.g., hunting, dog-fighting and bull-fighting are OK. g) Animals don't have rights and have no claims on our consideration.
Second part: In two or three sentences, what is the rationale for choosing that position?