1. (i) Anthropocentrism and then Owen attacks anthropocentrism. (ii) objection says that all living organisms are made up of the same cells, which make up tissues, which make up organs, and then organ systems. Since all beings, human or not, are composed of the same biological matter, then nonhuman animals should be given some moral consideration. I started to greatly understand his claim with the car analogy, so maybe implement some of those ideas earlier in the paper. 2. THINK: My objection to Owen’s objection: although multicellular organisms are composed of similar organic matter, the complexity of such matter can vary enormously amongst species. For example, scientists believe that mammals may be the only organisms that have the necessary neuroanatomy to consciously perceive pain and have emotions and self-awareness. We suffer when we are hurt because we physically and emotionally hurt. Organisms like reptiles, arachnids, and microfauna, for example, most likely do not perceive pain and have emotions the way mammals do; in fact, it is plausible that nonmammalian organisms do not feel pain or have emotions at all. Their lives are therefore not as emotionally or physically complex or enriched as those of mammals, so some can argue that they do not deserve moral consideration. WRITE: I find his objection to anthropocentrism extremely compelling because I, first, agree with his reasoning, and second, because he uses an analogy that brings great clarity to his objection. 3. Can you better show if you are supporting the moral hierarchy claim or the moral equality claim? 4. Resolution needs more clarity in the intro.