1. The text argues (Sections 10.3-10.8) that humans discriminate against (other) animals. What are some of the alleged forms of discrimination against animals? Do you think any or all of them are morally justified? Why or why not?

2. A common argument is that because humans are more intelligent than animals (assuming that is true), it is right that they dominate animals. Would it be equally plausible to argue that if one race (or sex) were shown to be more intelligent than another, then that race (or sex) should dominate the other? How would you explain and defend your answer to this question?

3.  Regan argues that animals have moral rights, Cohen argues that they do not (Section 10.10). Do you find either argument convincing? If so, what is wrong with the opposing argument?  If not, do you think it is constructive to move the issue away from rights?  What other considerations do you think are relevant to the question of whether animals warrant basic moral consideration (TB 9A, Section 9.2)?

4. “A private surgical-supply company last year operated upon, and then put to death, 974 dogs. The purpose was to perfect the design of surgical staple-guns and to demonstrate the devices for surgeons. The company asserts that it is ‘responding to the needs of the medical profession and of human beings’; the animals, it says, “must be sacrificed to advance the care and cure of human beings.’” (The New York Times, 12/8/81.)

Would you agree with the company’s view expressed in this article? What does the view imply with regard to the question whether animals deserve BMC or derivative moral consideration (DMC)?  Do you have a stand on this issue, and if so, how would you defend it?