After reading the first two paragraphs (on page 169), in your opinion: (a) Are animals…

After reading the first two paragraphs (on page 169), in your opinion: (a) Are animals more like George, or more like the pebble; (b) Please define moral status (yes, again); (c) Do animals have full, partial, or zero moral status?; (d) If they have partial or zero moral status, is it okay to test them in the manner described, in the third paragraph?
It is suggest that moral status can be obtained several distinct ways: (a) simply by being a human being, (b) having a future like ours (FLO), and (c) being a “person.” What traits does the author suggest we consider in determining if a person or a thing has “personhood” status that makes them “worthy of moral consideration” (i.e. moral status)? (pp. 169-170)
What are “moral patients”? Are they persons? If so, how is this determined? Do they have moral status? (p. 170)
What moral are moral agents? What responsibility, if any, do they have?
Do you agree or disagree that the Environment (as whole) is a moral patient? Assuming that it is a moral patient, who are its moral agents?
In the article, Peter Singer suggests a simplistic approach to determining moral status: “the ability to suffer.” What does the author suggest about the distinction between the suffering of one thing over another; such as, human animals (human beings) v. non-human animals (animals)? (p. 170, bottom-left paragraph)
Please explain the difference between the Consequentialists (Utilitarianism) v. Deontologists arguments for (against) using non-human animals for scientific experimentation. (p. 170, right column, 1st and 2nd full paragraphs)
In Peter Singer’s,
All Animals Are Equal
, what does he mean when he suggest the “principle of equality”? (p. 172)
Considering Singer’s discussion of Mary Wollstonecraft, the treatment of women, and the comparison to “brutes” (pp. 172-173), please explain Singer’s concept of “equality of consideration.” (p. 173)
What are the two reasons Singer offers, for why we should not discriminate based upon sex and race? (pp. 173-174)
One of the primary governing principles of the Utilitarianism theory is “each counts as one,” with no distinction. Singer has addressed the topics of both racism and sexism. What do he suggest to be true, in his opinion, about the topic of “speciesism”? (p. 174, right-hand column)
After reading the first two paragraphs (on p. 175), specifically including the indented paragraph, what does Jeremy Bentham – father of the Utilitarian theory – tell us about the way the ultimate question the French (even during the time of slavery) believed should be asked to determine whether animals are worthy of moral consider; hence, having moral status?
What are the three (3) types of “speciesism” that Singer describes? What does he say about the use of orphan babies, for experimentation? Do you agree, under the Utilitarian theory? If not, what is the difference between human babies and non-human animals, with regard to “personhood”? Does your answer change for adult human being in an extended vegetative state, such as the infamous Terry Schiavo case, in 2001? (pp. 175-176)
Please explain the concept of “intrinsic dignity” and “intrinsic worth. (pp. 177-178)