Peter Singer is a philosopher who argued for equal treatment of animals. By equal treatment, he doesn’t mean that a lion should have the right to run for president but instead means that the life of a lion and the life of a human should weigh the same. A better way to explain this is to imagine the following example between a lion and a human who are about to fall to their death on a cliff. You are passing by and realize you can only save one of them. In this instance, most people would want to save the human because it is the same species as you and this bias is what is referred to as speciesism. Speciesism is the bias towards your own species. Peter Singer did not like speciesism and thought it was morally wrong to value the life of your …show more content…
They wouldn't stop and think about what rights we have and what needs we might have. They’d simply rely on their instincts and attack us. They’d rip us to shreds without any thought or hesitation. Some people might disagree with this viewpoint including Singer and might ask should we really stoop down to their level just because they’d attack us or not treat us equally? In my opinion, I don’t think it should matter because we need to take precautions for ourselves and do the best to keep ourselves safe. We live in a world where the strongest and most adapted survive which is called natural selection, which is also vital to my next argument on why I disagree with …show more content…
A new problem would arise due to natural selection. Since there isn’t an infinite amount of resources and there are animals that have similar needs as other animals, there will be times where there’s competition for the finite resources we have on our planet. These competitions can lead to battles amongst them. There will also be times where we will have animals preying on other animals as well. An example of this are wolves who attack and eat cows. Since some cows are naturally killed by wolves throughout the world, what’s wrong with us killing the cows instead since they ’ll be killed naturally by nature? It doesn’t really make a difference if we kill cows because they’ll be killed in nature anyways. I don’t see a problem with killing animals because like I said with my example of the cows and the wolves, we will have situations where they will still die anyways whether we do it or not. It makes no difference whatsoever if we kill animals because they’ll be dying in nature
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.
First of all, why do we have the right to kill animals? Who gave us permission to do it? Animals’ lives should be respected like ours, after all we were all created with a purpose. Each one of us has the same right to live because we all form part of what is called “food chain”. For example if we had no grass what would antelopes eat? With no antelopes what would lions eat? And so on. It doesn’t make any sense to me how we are killing them not to survive but to have fun. I don’t think is fair either that because they are under us in the food chain we can do whatever we want with them, equality is for all kinds of creatures. Like Ann Causey, stated in Governor's Symposium on North America's Hunting Heritage in 1992: "Does killing an animal primarily to obtain a trophy demonstrate respect for that anima...
In the essay, “Are All Species Equal?” the author, David Schmidtz, stiffly denounces the views on species egalitarianism by philosopher Paul Taylor. Schmidtz explores Taylor’s views from all angles and criticisms and concludes that “biocentrism has a point but that it does not require any commitment to species equality.” (Schmidtz, 115). Schmidtz agrees with the major points of biocentrism; that humans live on the same terms as all other species in the community, that all species are interdependent and are all in pursuit of their own good. However, each species should not all be looked upon as the same and with the same level of contributions as every other species. There’s no way to compare one living thing to another unless the two are exactly identical. Therefore, instead of saying that every species is in fact on the same level, we should respect that each living thing should be evaluated differently. This is where respect for nature comes into play. Respecting each individual species for its own attributions is more just than saying that all should be treated equally. Schmidtz goes on to say that biocentrism and respect for nature do not go hand in hand with species egalitarianism, which to me, is a valid
Peter Singer begins with a simple assumption, that suffering and death from a lack of food, shelter, and or medical care is bad. From this, Singer derives two forms of his argument, a stronger form and a weaker form. The stronger argument goes as such, “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.” The weaker version of the argument goes, “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it” (Singer, 614). The key distinction between the stronger and weaker argument is about sacrificing anything of moral significance or something of comparable moral significance.
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.
In the article of "Why do species matters?" by Lilly-Marlene Russow, the author establish the desire of species,, why individuals tend to treat living being (creature) distinctively in light of the fact that they are an alternate animal groups; and furthermore treat certain creatures of an animal groups with more thought. She additionally emphasize on the issue which is figuring out what commitments a man may have toward one creature over another.Russow argues that one commitment toward animals for some is to secure declining or endangered species, yet this does not really stretch out to the whole types of that animal. As indicated
...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.
According to Darwin and his theory on evolution, organisms are presented with nature’s challenge of environmental change. Those that possess the characteristics of adapting to such challenges are successful in leaving their genes behind and ensuring that their lineage will continue. It is natural selection, where nature can perform tiny to mass sporadic experiments on its organisms, and the results can be interesting from extinction to significant changes within a species. Human beings are no exception to biological evolution. Like other organisms around the world, humans have significantly changed over time and have developed all sorts of diverse characteristics.
Within the theory of social Darwinism, or survival of the fittest, only the capable creatures will
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.
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.
Peter Singer practices utilitarianism, he believes the consequence of an action matters more than the reason behind the action. Singer is trying to convince his audience to donate their money to end world poverty. He believes it is moral to give as much money as the person can give, allowing them to purchase just enough for them to live on, and this will be the right action to take. Singer is aiming toward the United States to contribute more to charity. Singer does not consider specific aspects that do not support his argument and causes his argument to not list specific aspects of his belief. Singer’s argument is not a good argument because he does not consider the ramifications of people donating their surplus of money would do to the economy; is it our duty to feed the poor; and that our moral intuitions are not consequentialist at all when it concerns what our rescue duties entail.
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 ...
...ed by law because of murdering others, then it is wrong to kill animals as well.
...f with the rights of the planet and species not including humans. In other words, humans are of secondary importance to that of the natural world. There are two common views in this school of thought. The first is a weaker version that revolves around the phrase primus inter pares - first among equals – and the second version is a strong view in which environmentalists believe human are the cause of destruction. (Moseley).