see instruction

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: 1. 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? 2. 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?In the separate paragraph respond to “When looking at the life of babies, patients with Alzheimer’s, and dementia patients who are mistreated and when placed in the wrong hands, end up in terrible situations. Many people tend not to advocate for the lost of lives or petition for better treatment for them. It becomes a conflict due to not everyone is a fan of our beloved elderly and newborn babies. Yet they are in the same category as non-human in terms of having to have a caregiver who is attentive, loving, and able to provide quality care for them.  “