I’m trying to learn for my Philosophy class and I’m stuck. Can you help?
Consider what it means to make “moral progress” from the standpoint of Regan’s Kantian animal ethics and Singer’s utilitarian animal ethics. Do you agree that this would indeed be moral progress? Why or why not? In light of the debate between “Empty Cages, or Bigger Cages” (that is, from Singer’s stand point, any increase in welfare is a morally praiseworthy thing, whereas for Regan the only morally praiseworthy thing would be complete abolition of animal subordination), should we look 100% toward complete emancipation of animals or (at least in part) toward step-by-step reduction of animal suffering? The depth and detail with which you engage assigned Phil 112 texts will be the primary factor in evaluating the quality of your response
500 words,about 1,5 pages,double spaced, due on october 23rd