Mike writes:

"Morals are individually held. Whereas all individuals are expected to follow the law, we don't expect all individuals to follow the same moral code. Whereas all reasonable people follow the law, reasonable people can disagree about the moral action to take in a particular circumstance."

I'm not sure I agree with this statement. When you say that killing an innocent person is morally wrong, do you mean that it is wrong for you as an individual to kill or do you mean it is wrong for anyone? I think everyone is weary of being controlled by someone else's view of morality, but isn't that just because we believe there view is wrong, and not merely different? Also, does disagreement necessitate that there is no right answer? There was a time when there was much disagreement about the shape of Earth. Does this make both sides right? I'm not sure what the right answer is, but these are questions I often ponder.

After reading these chapters, I think I better understand at least one question we are up against. As Wellman eludes to on 110/11, a lot of the discussion happening is simply one of definitions. Different authors assert that certain conditions are necessary for someone to have a right. How, then, do we decide which definition of "rights" is better? Mike provides the quote from 111 before. Wellman seems to believe that the definition that is most consistent and/or provides the best way to talk about morality should be used. In that sense, the authors are not necessary arguing about which definition is more true but instead which is more useful. To that end, we can talk about certain conditions for a right being "meaningless" (110).

It is difficult for me to fathom that people actually believe that everyone isn't due a right to minimal health care. The libertarian arguments never make sense to me. No one garners well independent of everyone else in society--one person is generally advantaged at the cost of others. People are often placed in situations of which they have little to no control. Children have no control over where they live, yet where they live has significant effect on their health. Even if we disregard the talk of rights (which, of course, is the subject Wellman is discussing) we certainly have a duty to others. I'm surprised there isn't more discussion of the rights of children to health care. Is it generally agreed upon that all children have this right? Or, that this right can be claimed on their behalf?

I'm intrigued by the argument on page 121. How is it that we decide which characteristics count when talking about morality? Is it really a human centric view to presuppose rationality matters more than other characteristics? I think the best argument in favor of animal rights is the "subject of a life" argument presented by Regan. The author asks an important question, though: What makes one "subject of a life?" There are lots of brightline issues in these two chapters, whether it be a discussion of suicide, what counts as "life," what constitutes an aim, etc. In the end, regardless of whether we use the language of rights, I am compelled that torturing animals is wrong. Its just a matter of figuring out why.