In his paper “All Animals Are Equal”, Philosopher Peter Singer argues for an egalitarian view on the concept treatment for animals. This paper will explore the implications of his argument and seek to counter an objection one may have to his view. His argument bases itself in the basic principle of equality. The argument is that the basic principle of equality states that the interest of all being must be taken into account and considered as equal to all other beings To defend his position Singer cites the basic principle of equality as a way to show why in-egalitarian views that are morally wrong can be explained as morally wrong. In comparing those of different sexes and races there are instances in which both sides will contain a member better than their counterpart in all pertinent attributes, thus giving one explanation for why sexism and racism are wrong. With the basic principle of equality those of different sexes or races have their interest given equal weight, but in moral situations that deal in absolutes such as comparing two individuals who have defined and unchangeable attributes the basic principle of equality continues to give them equal consideration while the prior argument does not. So after making his case for the basic principle of equality, he explains how …show more content…
After he outlines this criteria he clarifies what qualifies as having this capacity and states that animals with vertebrae and those with sentience all qualify. Conversely, he states that while the capacity of suffering is enough to be considered as having interest, the alternative is not true, in that not having this capacity does not exclude a creature from being able to have interest. So his argument is that through the basic principle of equality animals have interests. The interest of animals must be considered as important as humans, speciesism doesn’t do this, and thus it is
Benjamin Percy uses the title “Me vs Animals” for a specific purpose and chose each word carefully. With only three words, the title conveys competition and comparison, gives the reader a connection to the essay, and instills a fear of the unknown. A title can make or break an entire piece of work. I think Percy contemplated over this title and chose three words that would accurately sum up his whole essay, with success. I would like to learn from this how to create a title that does just that.
In conclusion, I agree with Tom Regan’s perspective of the rights view, as it explores the concept of equality, and the concept of rightful treatment of animals and humans. If a being is capable of living, and experiencing life, then they are more than likely capable of feeling pleasure and pain, except in a few instances. If humans are still treated in a respectable and right way even if some cannot vote, or think for themselves, then it is only fair that animals who also lack in some of these abilities be treated as equals. As Regan puts it, “pain is pain, wherever it occurs” (1989).
Paragraph four cites the Bibles and how it supports the author’s main claim on the use of animals for the sake of humans. It states that humans are supposed to be closer to the divine than animals due that humans were made in God’s image. Steiner also refers to the anthropocentrically thoughts of two Christian thinkers that agreed that animals have been devaluated through
Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this concern is still subject to much disagreement. The political, cultural and philosophical animal liberation movement demands for a fundamental transformation of humans’ present relations to all sentient animals. They reject the idea that animals are merely human resources, and instead claim that they have value and worth in themselves. Animals are used, among other things, in basic biomedical research whose purpose is to increase knowledge about the basic processes of human anatomy. The fundamental wrong with this type of research is that it allows humans to see animals as here for them, to be surgically manipulated and exploited for money. The use of animals as subjects in biomedical research brings forth two main underlying ethical issues: firstly, the imposition of avoidable suffering on creatures capable of both sensation and consciousness, and secondly the uncertainty pertaining to the notion of animal rights.
In his article entitled “Animal Liberation,” Peter Singer suggests that while animals do not have all of the exact same rights as humans, they do have an equal right to the consideration of their interests. This idea comes from the fact that animals are capable of suffering, and therefore have sentience which then follows that they have interests. Singer states “the limit to sentience...is the only defensible boundary of concern for interests of others” (807). By this, he means that the ability to feel is the only grounds for which rights should be assigned because all species of animals, including humans, have the ability, and therefore all animals have the right to not feel suffering and to instead feel pleasure.
Throughout the last century the concern of animals being treated as just a product has become a growing argument. Some believe that animals are equal to the human and should be treated with the same respect. There are many though that laugh at that thought, and continue to put the perfectly roasted turkey on the table each year. Gary Steiner is the author of the article “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable”, that was published in the New York Times right before Thanksgiving in 2009. He believes the use of animals as a benefit to human beings is inhumane and murderous. Gary Steiner’s argument for these animal’s rights is very compelling and convincing to a great extent.
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.
All humans are not equal but not due to their race, creed, or sex, it is due to the individual themselves. Each individual has a different amount of emotional sensitivity, ability, and intelligence, but they also have a different way of communicating thoroughly and have different experiences of pleasure or pain. We do not know if the average abilities that society considers equal are based on genetics or just the fact of environmental origin. We would rather look at the fact that these differences in humans could be due to environment rather than genetics. Singer compares these groups of humans to open up to the fact that there are many differences in every human. No human on this Earth is exactly the same so therefore how can we all be exactly equal? If one is to think about humans this way, it will open the mind up to the idea of the equality of animals and how these nonhuman animals would be any different. Equality is simply a moral idea not a specific
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.
“The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality.”(Arthur Schopenhauer)
As an advocate of animal rights, Tom Regan presents us with the idea that animals deserve to be treated with equal respect to humans. Commonly, we view our household pets and select exotic animals in different regard as oppose to the animals we perceive as merely a food source which, is a notion that animal rights activists
...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.
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. Lastly, he argues that sentience is the only characteristic that should be considered in terms of granting animal rights. This leads him to the conclusion that “if a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration… The principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering – insofar as rough comparisons can be made – of any other being”.
Speciesists claim that this enables them to think and act morally, and so entitles them to a higher moral status. This argument, like many other speciesist arguments, fails when “the argument from marginal cases” is applied. The argument from marginal cases argues that if we treat beings based on traits, such as rationality, we must then treat all beings of equal rationality the same.... ... middle of paper ... ...
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