The answer to this question depends, in turn, on which qualities of the living creature are recognised as morally relevant. Not a fair move. Rather, the racist, sexist or heterosexist commits the error of making the "value" of a person dependent in any way on his or her qualities.
She defines cruel as: "Cruelty is the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering.
She's assumed what she was trying to prove. When I hear of harming for the pure sake of inflicting pain, then, like Steinbock, I guess questions seems at an end for me and I just have to say: YES.
Thus we can let the dogs starve if there isn't enough food.
Such an argument would be impossible were there not a special status species for humans that made them the preferred species. Tierversuche und moralischer Individualismus.
As a matter of principle all humans are distinguished by their capacity for moral action - that is, action that takes account of the interests of other living creatures - as well as by their desire for autonomy, dignity and respect.Lastly, she counts neglect as cruelty. But must all other people? When would I get to the point of having developed a moral obligation to the stray such that to stop feeding it would be neglect? In this sense I can understand Steinbock's claim. Bob Corbett. Furthermore, Steinbock affirms speciesism. Whites often make that argument for excluding blacks. Ach, Johann S. How does one then criticize it? For example I can see a very different situation between MY cat and feeding a stray. ONE manner not the only, but nonetheless one is to show that this moral claim leads to some result in the world which we can see is just a silly or clearly undesirable state of affairs again, that prima facie business. Yet all they are doing is "taking care of one's own. One that she deals with is that it would follow we couldn't BE SURE that we should feed a hungry and starving child before feeding a hungry and starving cat.