An Analysis of Capacities, Moral Hierarchies, and the Moral Status of Non-Human Animals in Contemporary Animal Rights Work

The primary objective of this thesis is to demonstrate the pernicious impact that moral hierarchies have on our perception and subsequent treatment of non-human animals. Moral hierarchies in general are characterized by a dynamic in which one group is considered to be fundamentally superior to a lesser group. This thesis focuses specifically on the moral hierarchies that arise when humans are assumed to be superior to non-human animals in virtue of their advanced mental capabilities. The operative hypothesis of this thesis is essentially that moral hierarchies thwart the provision of justice to non-human animals in that they function as a justification for otherwise impermissible actions. When humans are assumed to be fundamentally superior to non-human animals then it becomes morally permissible for humans to kill non-human animals and utilize them as mere instrumentalities. This thesis is driven primarily by an in-depth analysis of the approaches to animal rights that are provided by Peter Singer, Tom Regan, and Gary Francione. Each of these thinkers claim that they overcome anthropocentrism and provide approaches that preclude the establishment of a moral hierarchy. One of the major findings of this thesis, however, is that Singer and Regan offer approaches that remain highly anthropocentric despite the fact that each thinker claims that they have overcome anthropocentrism. The anthropocentrism persists in these respective approaches in that each thinkers gives humans Regan and Singer have different conceptions of the criteria that are required to afford a being moral worth, but they both give preference to beings that have the cognitive ability to form desires regarding the future.. As a result, a moral hierarchy emerges in which humans are regarded to be fundamentally superior. Francione, however, provides an approach that does not foster a moral hierarchy. Francione creates such an approach by applying the principle of equal consideration of interests in a consistent manner. Moreover, Francione argues that mere sentience is both a necessary and sufficient condition for being eligible and subsequently receiving moral consideration. The upshot of this thesis is essentially that the moral treatment of animals is not compatible with the presence of a moral hierarchy. As a result, this thesis demonstrates that future approaches to animal rights must avoid the establishment of moral hierarchies. The research and analysis within this thesis demonstrates that this is not a possibility, however, unless all theories of justice that are to accommodate animals abandon the notion that cognition matters morally.

A Validity Study of the Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire

The short, portable mental status questionnaire (SPMSQ) developed by Pfeiffer has several advantages over previous short instruments designed to assess the intellectual functioning of older adults. It is based upon data from both institutionalized and community-dwelling elderly. Although Pfeiffer a four-group classification, he used to groups in his initial validation study: (a) intact/mildly impaired, and (b) moderately/severely impaired. The present study compared clinicians' ratings with those based upon the SPMSQ scores, and examined the validity of the four-group classification. The sample included 181 subjects from seven intermediate care facilities and nine home-care agencies. All were assessed by the OARS questionnaire, which includes the SPMSQ Three discriminant analyses were performed with three different criteria, for two-group, three-group, and four-group models. Results indicated that the two-group model (intact/mildly impaired and moderately/severely impaired) permitted significant discrimination. The four-group model, however, gave less distinct results. In particular, patients who were mildly intellectually impaired could not be clearly distinguished from those who were intact and from those who were moderately impaired. The three-group model (minimally, moderately, severely impaired) seemed to offer the best compromise between the gross dichotomy of the original two-model system and the less accurate four category system.