Weber, Eli. “Vulnerability, Dependence, And Special Obligations To Domesticated Animals: A Reply To Palmer.” Journal Of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 28.4 (2015): 683-694. Business Source Complete. Web. 20 Mar. 2016.
The article is a reply to Clare Palmer’s argument that most people have a “special obligation” to assist domesticated animals. Because Domestication creates Vulnerability and dependency and most humans benefits from the institute of domestication. Palmer believes that even if they have not consented to such obligations or bred domesticated animals themselves. However, Eli Weber disagrees stating that palmer has given no reason for people to accept this claim and that even if there’s such a thing as special obligation and that vulnerable and dependent beings give rise to special obligation, just because we benefit from these animals does not mean we have a special obligation to them. That the special obligation Palmer disuses refers to the “moral obligations which are borne to a subset of individuals rather than all individuals with direct moral status”. Concluding that voluntarism explain the prevalent intuition to often assist domestic animals because of special obligation but rarely wild animals.