| dc.description.abstract | This article critically explores the assumptions of ‘reason-based moral status’ theorists, as well as ‘sentient’ theorists in establishing moral status. While ‘reason based moral status’ theorists regard reason as the key
defining feature of moral status; Peter Singer names sentience as the defining characteristic of moral status.
Having looked closely at these submissions, I argue that both arguments are morally repugnant. I maintain that
reason is just but one criterion of establishing moral status and it will be wrong to suppose that only reason defines
moral status, as nonhuman
animals are not endowed with this capacity and hence cannot be disadvantaged
because of a capacity which they do not possess in the ‘state of creation.’ In my submissions I also observe that
sentience has degrees which Singer fails to identify and discuss. My thesis is at variance with these two positions;
for I take it that sentience may not be limited to a mere feeling of pain and pleasure. Against this background, I
dismiss Singer’s sentience argument and call for a return to the ‘state of creation’ where all living beings are equal
on the basis of having lifespan,
species and genus specifications, the brains as well as having flesh and blood. | en_US |
