Explain, reconstruct, and critically examine Jan Narveson’s rejection of according animals rights and the consequent view that “… I think we can eat meat and perform animal experimentation in good conscience.” How does Narveson reach this view? Minimally, you need to explain why Narveson thinks that animals’ lack of sophisticated language skills is, according to him, relevant in not bestowing animals with moral consideration. Also, why does Narveson think that the fact that animals are not agents but “patients” is relevant for their non-moral status. After this, present a couple of objections Narveson poses to his own position and evaluate his responses to such objections. Do you think that Narveson successfully rebuts the objections or not? Provide an argument for your view.
Explain, reconstruct, and critically examine Jan Narveson’s rejection of according animals rights and the consequent view that “… I think we can eat meat and perform animal experimentation in good conscience.” How does Narveson reach this view?
