Many philosophers have argued against Singer's claim that all animals are equal. However, none of these responses have demonstrated an appreciation of the complexity of his position. The result is that all of these responses focus on one of his arguments in a way that falls victim to another. This paper is a critical examination of a possible response to the full complexity of Singer's position that derives from the work of Carl Cohen, Kathleen Wilkes, and F. Ramsey. On this response, a being's

more »

... moral status depends not on the capacities and abilities she does in fact have, but instead on the capacities and abilities normal for the members of her species. However, this response is ultimately unacceptable, for it depends on a faulty conception of loss and misfortune and its underlying moral principle is irrational at best and morally objectionable at worst. The failure of even this response to Singer gives us good reason to conclude with Singer that all animals are equal. Peter Singer has argued that "all animals are equal". Since then, many philosophers have attempted to spell out just where Singer has gone wrong, for it is clear to them that not all animals are, in fact, equal. Indeed, only a little reflection on common sense should tell us that, as the title of an article written against Singer's conclusion states, "some animals are more equal than others". 1 However, none of the responses to Singer have been able to rebut his arguments completely. The problem is that most philosophers have misunderstood the overall structure of Singer's position, resulting in responses to one of his arguments that fall victim to another. This fact helps to explain why there is a continued interest in his work on the moral status of animals: while many Between the Species V August 2005 www.cla.calpoly.edu/bts/