Reference no: EM133606084

Question

Jeremy Bentham's quote is a powerful argument for animal rights, suggesting that the capacity to suffer, rather than the ability to reason or communicate, should be the basis for granting rights. Bentham argues that even a full-grown horse or dog, which may not have the same cognitive abilities as a human, still has a greater capacity for suffering than a human infant. This argument is ethically sound as it appeals to the principle of minimizing harm and suffering, a common tenet in many ethical frameworks. The question of moral justification to ignore a being's suffering is complex. However, in general, it is difficult to find a moral justification for ignoring suffering. This is because most ethical systems prioritize minimizing harm and suffering. Ignoring the suffering of a being, especially when it is within our power to alleviate it, could be seen as a violation of this principle. Singer's comparison between a stone and a mouse further emphasizes this point. A stone, being an inanimate object, cannot suffer. A mouse, however, as a living being, has the capacity to suffer. Therefore, it is morally incumbent upon us to consider the mouse's suffering in our actions. This comparison underscores the importance of.