a philosophy paper

Section I: Argument summary (the largest section): (the following are points and questions must be addressed)

1. What is Singer's main conclusion. Be as specific as possible. Remember that a conclusion is a claim that the author is trying to prove. It is not simply the topic.

2. How does Singer support his main conclusion? In other words, what are his premises?

1. What is the "principle of equal consideration of interests"?

2. How does this principle relate to differences in gender and race?

3. How does the principle relate to how we treat animals?

4. How does the capacity to suffer relate to his argument?

3. Why can't we treat animals differently based on their mental capacity?

4. Speciesism in practice; what are his arguments concerning these things?

1. Animals as food

2. Experimenting on animals

5. The rest of the article does not need to be summarized, but it needs to be read and understood before the critique is written. This will help you avoid the possibility of misunderstanding his position as you proceed.

Section II: Critique:

Does Singer have enough support for his conclusions? Are his premises weak, strong, or somewhere in between? Defend you answers in detail. Make sure not to commit errors in reasoning, especially the fallacies we talked about in class!

Section III: Your argument:

How do you think animals should be treated? Should they be eaten? If so, what should be the conditions of their farms? Also, should we use them for experimentation? Give detailed support for your conclusions. Also, make sure that your arguments take into account what Singer has said. Again, make sure not to commit errors in reasoning, especially the fallacies we talked about in class!