Peter Singer Mean by “Speciesism” (Term Paper Sample)

Answer each question using no more than 600 words.
 Use a 12-point font and single-space your answers (if you lack access to a word processor and cannot type your answers, send me an email).
 I am not expecting essays. There is no need to write an introduction or conclusion. Just answer the questions.
 Use complete sentences (not bullet points).
 There is no need to cite unless you are quoting someone (though see the next note).
 Answer the questions in your own words. You cannot demonstrate that you understand something merely by quoting the readings or lecture notes. If you use
quotations, be sure to cite and explain the quoted passage.
Exam Questions
1) What does Peter Singer mean by “speciesism” and why does he believe that speciesism is morally wrong? Explain why Singer would say that meat-eaters are speciesists even if farming practices did not cause animals to suffer. Finally, explain how Shelly Kagan’s appeal to Superman and E.T. is meant to challenge Singer’s claim that most of us are speciesists.
2) Glenn Parsons draws a distinction between strong and weak aesthetic preservationism. Explain that distinction.
Suppose that a lightning strike has ignited a forest fire in northern Ontario that will destroy an aesthetically valuable forest unless it is extinguished. What would a strong preservationist say about a plan to extinguish the fire? Would she be for or against such a plan? Why or why not?
What would a weak preservationist say about a plan to extinguish the fire? Would she be for or against the plan? Why or why not? (In answering these questions, limit your explanation of what the strong and weak preservationisnt would say to considerations that follow from their being strong and weak preservationists, respectively). Finally, using the forest fire example, explain why a critic of strong aesthetic preservationism would say that strong preservationism is self-defeating.
For a bonus point, explain why Richard Watson would deny that strong aesthetic preservationism is self-defeating.
3) Paul Taylor defends “The Attitude of Respect for Nature” according to which all living things
(and populations of living things) have inherent worth. Explain what Taylor means when he says that all living things and populations of living things have inherent worth. Also, explain what
Taylor mean when he says that having the attitude of respect for nature involves regarding actions that tend to realize the good of organisms and populations of living things to be “prima facie obligatory because they have that tendency”.
Suppose that the Government of Ontario proposes to build a hydro-electric dam on a river in order to generate electricity. What would someone who had the attitude of respect for nature want to know before forming a judgment about whether building the dam is morally permissible? Give one example of a possible consequence of building the dam that a person with the “the attitude of respect for nature” would count against building the dam and explain why it would count against building it. Would a person with the attitude of respect for nature regard this consequence as a decisive reason to refrain from building the dam? Explain why or why not.