The document discusses different moral theories and their implications for determining the moral status of animals and humans. Utilitarian approaches that consider pleasure and pain tend to include animals in moral calculations, while Kantian views focusing on rationality assign non-humans less worth. This raises questions about how these theories apply to humans with reduced rationality, such as those with brain damage or dementia. The document questions what criterion should determine moral status for animals and humans, and whether there is a way to argue that humans have greater value without also implying that some humans have less value than others.

1. The issue of animal moral status is important in itself but it also
is good as a way to raise questions about moral theories. It is
clear that utilitarian approaches that focus on pleasure and pain
as the source of what is morally important will tend to include
animals in moral calculations since many if not all can
experience pleasure and pain. It has tended to be true that
Kantian approaches to morality that focus on the dignity of the
individual, often deriving from their rationality, give non-
humans far less moral worth, on the assumption that humans are
far more rational than non-humans.
This raises questions about the value of humans who deviate
from the normal -- especially those who are less rational. That
includes people with major brain damage, people with major
dementia, and babies.
So here is the question: what criterion of moral status should we
use for animals, and what implications does that have how how
we should treat the humans who don't meet the criteria? Is there
a way to argue that humans are more valuable than non-humans
without also implying that some humans are more valuable than
other humans?
at least 400 words