Peter Carruther's Argument Against Animals, By Peter Caruthers

Peter Caruthers book on the other hand, I personally did not enjoy reading it as much. I found it a bit difficult to comprehend, in the sense that he would state his views on why animals should not be treated ethically, and have arguments that I personally did not find convincing. I am not against him because he is opposing animals’ rights, but instead because I just did not find his arguments as persuasive. He does use the slippery slope fallacy. One of the points that he makes is that if moral rights are denied to humans on certain grounds that they are not rational agents, then that would lead to trigger a chain of events to humans who are rational agents. (Carruthers, 1999, p. 114). “Someone who argues that since animals do not have rights,

115). He is claiming that no slippery slope exists between animals and humans, which is a big statement to make. Also, if you look back to the paragraph where I talk about him, one of the points that I used of his is that he does not care about animals’ feelings, (which would make sense because he is against animals having moral rights). Although he does provide an example of torturing a cat using a dartboard, and how he thinks it is cruel; but not because the cat is suffering, but rather because our behaviour and treatment towards the cat would be viewed as wrong, in his eyes, because then that can ultimately lead to our treatment towards human beings. Carruthers does not want humans to mistreat animals, because people “...who are taught to care for animals and respect life...are more likely to be nurturing and kind to humans.” (Grant, 2006, p. 118), which makes sense, but by saying that we should not consider how a cat feels after they have been used as a dartboard is weak and not convincing. I found it upsetting when I read this point, because I imagined my cat being used as a dartboard, and the image in my head was just horrendous. If I use my cat as a dartboard, how am I not supposed to feel for