Bad Internet Philosophy: All Animals Are Equal By Peter Singer

300 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: Nature of social inequality

Bad Internet Philosophy
Feng Xiong Peter Singer talked about the concept of the basic principle of equality in his paper All Animals Are Equal (Singer, 1). I agree with his view that humans and animals are equal beings in the world (Singers, 2). Here I will present a view from the internet which states that humans are superior to other animals. I will then identify the mistakes made in the view and give my explanations. One comment from Quora stated that “Several religions believe that the animals were put on the planet to serve man, which automatically puts them below us on the scale of importance” (Friedman, “Why Are Animal Lives Less Valued than Human Lives?”). There are two mistakes in this argument. First, the view

Show More
Related

  • Why Similarity Doesn't Mean Equality

    831 Words  | 2 Pages

    Species egalitarianism is an easily outmoded form of communicating treatment of species because of all the questions and speculation it ultimately raises. The equivocation of animals is absurd. We can’t compare them because of all their fundamental differences, and to do so is insulting to all species that fall below the parameters we instill. Ultimately, there is no possible situation in which species egalitarianism is correct.

    Read More

  • Jeremy Bentham's Theory Of Utilitarianism And Nonhuman Animals

    1268 Words  | 3 Pages

    What do we, as humans have to do in order to give nonhuman animals the proper treatment and equal moral consideration as we owe for other humans? Some, such as Jeremy Bentham would address that, “The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation” (99). Other moral philosophers, like Henry Sidgwick, however reject the theory of utilitarianism thinking that is pleasure all that really matters and are consequences all that matters (111-112)? Humans use nonhuman animals for one purpose; pleasure from using their skins for luxury goods. In this paper, I will explain and examine what Jeremy Bentham is trying explain in his argument, and will attempt to show that his argument is a plausible one, by replying an objection against his utilitarian view.

    Read More

  • Factory Farms and Animal Cruelty

    3690 Words  | 8 Pages

    Some Christians think the words "animal rights" smack of wacky liberalism or of sentimentality. Such thinking presupposes that animals are not proper objects of moral concern. After all, in Genesis God commanded Adam to rule over creation. God gave Noah "everything that lives and moves" for food (Gen. 1:28). Therefore, according to this way of thinking, animals exist exclusively as means to human ends.

    Read More

  • Individualism In The Singer's Argument Of Speciesism

    918 Words  | 2 Pages

    Singer’s argument in favor of the claim that speciesism is false can be formulated as follows. Singer comments that a requirement for equality is to have interests. In order to have interests, the being must be able to suffer. Animals are capable of suffering, therefore they have interests. Since animals have interests, they meet the requirement for equality. Humans base their criteria for equality on being actual human beings. Singer proposes that to just be a human is not the requirement of being equal because humans are different in moral codes, shapes, sizes, intellectual abilities and genetic make-up. Since humans are different from one another, in his view, then it cannot be a plausible reason to treat all humans equally because they belong to the same species. However, all

    Read More

  • Critical Analysis Of Peter Singer's Speciesism And Moral Status

    736 Words  | 2 Pages

    Men have thought themselves to be the superior species for a long time, but Peter Singer brings a new perspective on the topic in his essay entitled Speciesism and Moral Status. Singer’s new way of thinking of it states that determining morals status requires the comparison between the cognitive abilities of humans and nonhumans. The main points he focusses on in his essay are cognitive capacities between animals and humans with severe mental retardation, religion affecting human’s beliefs of superiority, and finally the ability to suffer and how similar humans and nonhumans are.

    Read More

  • Carl Cohen's Do Animals Have Rights?

    722 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...nger states “Equality is a moral idea, not an assertion of fact. There is no logically compelling reason for assuming that a factual difference in ability between two people justifies any difference in the amount of consideration we give to their needs and interests”. Singer argues that, as there is no justification for unequal treatment of human beings based on capacity, it is also unjustifiable to treat human and non-human animals differently based on their capacities.

    Read More

  • Equality in Peter Singer´s All Animals are Equal

    2024 Words  | 5 Pages

    And if not, how far does the argument go and/or how might it be improved? What has Singer taught us here, if anything?" Singer makes a three-part argument for why “All Animals Are Equal”, or at the very least should be granted equal consideration. Firstly, he argues that, assuming all humans are awarded equal rights, there is no single characteristic apart from being human that grants them such rights. Secondly, he argues that awarding rights by virtue of humanity is arbitrary and speciesist.

    Read More

  • The Problem With Speciesism

    1118 Words  | 3 Pages

    In this essay, I will discuss and define both speciesism and moral individualism in Paola Cavalieri’s book, The Animal Question. Additionally, I will provide my opinion on which is the strongest argument for speciesism and why I still disagree with it. Speciesism is the belief that humans are inherently superior to all other animals, solely based on their species membership. This widely held belief is used to justify the blatant discrimination of nonhuman animals, resulting in a lack of moral rights and the exploitation of defenseless beings. This view, that humans are of special moral status, is constantly attempted to be rationalized in various ways.

    Read More

  • Animals and Humans Are Not Equal

    1101 Words  | 3 Pages

    The debate of whether animal rights are more important than human rights is one that people have argued mercilessly. Some people think all animals are equal. To understand this, humans must be considered animals. Humans are far more civilized than any animal, they have the power, along with understanding to control many types of sickness and disease. This understanding that humans have, keeps them at the top of the food chain.

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay Regarding Animal Rights As Humans

    780 Words  | 2 Pages

    Over 2 million animals are killed every year, almost all of these animals had never felt the embrace of a loving person. Animal rights are very conservational because some people think animals are things, they do not see them as living beings, and just see them as if they are just something that can be replaced. Everything done to animals have emotional effects on them and they are not things that just do not feel pain. Animals should have similar rights as humans because animals feel pain just as much as humans do, have emotions just as humans, and they have things that humans have.

    Read More

  • ANIMAL RIGHTS

    794 Words  | 2 Pages

    The biocentric worldview, which is life centered, focuses on the importance of all living things and considers all living things to have intrinsic value. I will be using Peter Singer’s ideas as the main focus explaining that animals share equal moral status with human beings and that therefore is unethical for people to kill and eat them. In “All Animals are Equal” by Peter Singer recognizes that there are differences between humans and other species. As he ...

    Read More

  • Animals Deserve Rights

    803 Words  | 2 Pages

    However, it is the purpose of this essay to convince the reader otherwise. The question at hand is: do animals deserve rights? It must certainly be true. Humans deserve rights and this claim is made on numerous appeals. Of one of the pertinent pleas is made on the claim that humans can feel emotions. More importantly, that humans are capable of suffering, and that to inflict such pain is unethical. Those who observe the tortures of the Nazi Concentration Camp are instilled with a humane creed held for all humans. But if there is no significant gulf between humans, that is to say there is no gulf based on skin color, creed, or gender that will make one human more or less valuable than any other, then by what right can a gulf be drawn out between humans and our fellow creatures? The suffering of humans is why we sympathize with each other. Since animals suffer, they deserve our sympathy.

    Read More

  • Vivisection Essay

    739 Words  | 2 Pages

    According to the philosopher Peter Singer, speciesists treat human interests as more fundamental than other nonhuman animals interests; therefore, speciesists ignore the interests of other species where no great benefit to human interests is concerned (Singer 279). For instance, the BUAV claims that experiments like sewing kittens’ eyelids together to study amblyopia have been done many years ago, and yet no cure has been found (Hanlon 1). As a result, Singer argues nonhuman animals are regarded as only “an item of laboratory equipment” (281). Many of the experiments on animals are carried out for rather trivial interests such that speciesists give the weight of nonhuman animals less weight than the interests of human beings. Singer asserts that human beings need to apply the principle of equal consideration of interests to animals to give equal weight on them (Singer 277). Singer’s theory of equal consideration of interests is extremely useful because it sheds insight on vivisection since the fundamental issue in how human may treat animals is whether they suffer and such that pains of animals and humans deserve equal considerations (Singer 278). Whether it’s poultry farming or vivisection, sentient animals have interests of not experiencing pain or suffering (Singer 278). According to Hanlon, animal recruits lead better lives and better deaths in laboratory than in poultry

    Read More

  • Equal Consideration of Interests and Our Moral Obligation

    675 Words  | 2 Pages

    Peter Singer’s argument for animal equality is mainly dependent on the principle of equality. The principle of equality states that we as humans are all equal in a moral sense, meaning that we are each permitted to equal consideration of our interests. Singer also states that the principle of equality cannot only depend on specific qualities of humans (such as race), which would mean that it cannot only be applied to humans either. By this, Peter Singer means that non-human animals should also receive equal consideration of their interests, but only if they are sentient. Anything that is sentient is able to feel both pain and pleasure. In my opinion, sentience is the most important part of Singer’s entire argument because it gives clear reason to why most of the human race should become vegetarian. Singer’s argument for vegetarianism (and just his beliefs in general) is based completely on utilitarianism. He would argue that by eating meat, we do not maximize overall pleasure and actually causes unnecessary suffering. The reason that the suffering is unnecessary is that ...

    Read More

  • Animal Rights vs Human Rights

    906 Words  | 2 Pages

    Throughout the history of the world, there have been subjects of heated debates; there are a few facts that are undisputed. One of the undisputed facts is that animals existed and inhabited the planet before humans did and humans have been dependent on animals for thousands of years. Animals have played a very vital part in our history and one wonders whys should they be treated with much cruelty. While animals have been a great resource, a steady supply of food and clothing and even security, our treatment towards them has become nothing short of appalling. Since humans are dependent on animals for their well being, their comfort and at times their religion, there should be a moral obligation to treat animals.

    Read More

More about Bad Internet Philosophy: All Animals Are Equal By Peter Singer

Open Document