I have tried to show that Singer’s argument is logically stronger than Cohen’s argument. Cohen’s first argument is logically true because it is common sense, and we can apply it anywhere. However, his second premise abandons the logical implication of animals do not have moral judgement. There are a lot of animals who help and rescue people. For instance, a rescue dog knows that it has to help people who get stuck because of the flood, or a helper dog who helps blind people. The facts that there are animals who have moral judgement make this premise logically weak. On the other hand, both of Peter Singer’s argument are logically strength which it can be applied to anything because it is common sense as all people can see it directly because
