Question

How does Peter Singer address the objection that infants have a potential moral autonomy that animals do not, and thus must be treated differently?

a. He alters the medical experiment scenario to involve a permanently brain-damaged infant.
b. He alters the medical experiment to focus on sentient chimpanzees, rather than orphaned infants.
c. He points out that this objection will require the condemnation of abortion, in addition to experiments on human infants.
d. He points out that human infants are much less self-sufficient and self-aware than adult animals.

Answer 1

Peter Singer contends that if potential moral autonomy grants moral status, then we must consistently extend protections, calling into question practices like abortion and challenging the basis of moral worth solely on species membership.

Step-by-step explanation:

Peter Singer addresses the objection that infants have a potential moral autonomy that animals do not by pointing out that this line of reasoning may require the condemnation of both abortion and experiments on human infants.

Singer suggests that if we assign moral status based on potential, then any human, regardless of current capacities, must be afforded protections, which would extend to fetuses and render abortion impermissible if we are to be consistent. His explorations take into consideration scenarios involving permanently brain-damaged infants who lack the potential for moral autonomy and self-aware adult animals, pressing against the notion that species membership alone dictates moral status.

As a utilitarian philosopher, Singer argues that the capacity for suffering, rather than rationality or species membership, should guide our moral considerations. This perspective raises questions about the ethical treatment of non-human animals and challenges assumptions about human superiority based solely on rational capabilities or species.