In this paper, I am going to argue that Peter Singer is right to claim that human suffering and animal suffering should be given equal consideration. Even though animals are not intellectually or physically at the same level as us humans, they can still feel pain when hurt. (48) Peter Singer, an Australian moral philosopher, wrote his book Animal Liberation in 1975. This book practically started the animal rights movement. In his book, Singer says that animal liberation today is somewhat comparable to racial and gender justice back in the days when blacks were not free men and as treated as below the system and women did not get the luxury of equal rights as a white man. In his book, Singer discusses speciesism, a term made up by Richard Ryder, …show more content…
He persistently try to persuade us into thinking carefully about our principal states of mind from the perspective of those most distraught by our mentalities, and the practices that take after from these attitudes. Singer is against speciesism. By concentrating on what a person wants or needs and not contemplating the overwhelming impacts that that restricted way may have on nonhuman, sentient creatures, we are not just coming up short ourselves, in that we are not maximizing the potential purity of our moral status, additionally significantly influencing, in a negative way, the world to which we live in. On these basis, Singer believes that we as a race, can come together to see scope for a new liberation; the animal rights liberation. According to Singer, all people are not equal, seeing that the reality is concerned – profound quality in any case. Singer believes that when we inquire as to whether all people are equivalent in a cognizant domain, the very way of it is pretty much rendered insignificant. He strongly accepts and suggests others as well the idea that the main rule for equality is distributing equality of equal …show more content…
I agree with his idea that equality does not require equal rights. It is based on equal consideration. For example, I say animals must have the same right as a human, if a human can vote, so should the animal. Giving a nonhuman the right to vote for someone is as absurd as it can be. I can give a dog the right to vote and elect the next President of America. But it would not understand the moral importance of such responsibility. It lacks the required intellect. This would show that equality does not require equal rights. Another example would be that since every human being has the right to education and should go to college, that does not mean a dog or any other sentient species for that matter should be sent to college. But that does not mean we can treat a non-human creature any way we want. People might object that animals for so different from a human in so many different fields, the major one being that humans are much smarter than ant animal. To that argument, any sane person would say that if a person is weak physically or intellectually, it would be wrong to treat that person in a disrespectful way or to abuse them. If we are not going to do something like this to a weak human being, why shall we treat a non-human, sentient, living thing that way? It has the ability to suffer when hurt. An animal deserves the same respect when it comes to cases like this. Thus, factual identity is not essential for moral
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.
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.
...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’s argument that our society is speciesist hinges on his observation that “most human beings… [would] cause pain to animals when they would not cause a similar pain to humans for the same reason” (Singer, Animal Liberation, p. 17). His hypothesis is that “the overwhelming majority of humans” take varyingly active and passive roles in championing activities that cause irreparable harm to other species in the name of the “most trivial interests of our own species” (Singer, Animal Liberation, p. 9). The examples he provides to substantiate this theory range from accounts o...
It is apparent that there are many philosophers that stand on both sides of the argument. One side is clearly expressing that while there may be some overlap between the human species and nonhuman species, we are not equal because of the concept of rationality, for example. However, I see Singer’s arguments as much stronger than the other philosophers. He draws on many solid points backed up by concrete evidence that is easily understandable on many points, pulling from different experiences and true events. I defend Singer’s view that nonhuman animals are equal to human beings because he points cannot be discounted, but more heavily supported the more he digs into them.
Throughout history, societies have been faced with many social issues affecting their citizens. Martin Luther King Jr, a civil rights leader for African Americans, was an advocate for the Civil Rights Movement, a movement that fought to undo the injustices African Americans endure by American society in the 1960s. Martin expressed his disgust with the social inequality among citizens when saying “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (PETA). Taking the prominent leader’s words into consideration, we should progress as a society by participating in the animal rights movement that strives to extend the same compassion, felt by Martin Luther King Jr, to all living things (PETA). Popular criticisms report that animals are inferior to humans because they are a source of food, but I will argue that they are victims of social injustice. Validity for my animal rights argument will come from individual and organizational expert accounts and by Bioethicist Peter Singer, Author Francis Fukuyama, New York Time’s Mark Bittman and also Animal Rights organizations, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and Animal Equality, to help prove my argument. Animals are silent victims who are loudly crying out for someone to stand up for their rights; rights that can no longer be disregarded by being overlooked. It is my belief that animals should be respected, and afforded ethical and human treatment by society instead of being looked at as a source of food. In a society where animals have no voice, it is everyone’s civic duty to participate in the animal rights movement and acknowledge animals as living beings, which...
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
Singer, Peter. “The Case of Animal Liberation.” In Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, 8th edition,edited by Louis P. Pojman and Lewis Vaughn (New York: Oxford
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
Animals can be a man's best friend; however, they can also be ones worst enemy after passing certain boundaries. Peter Singer who wrote Animal Liberation gave valid points in my opinion because animals do have a right to live and we should give them their space. Humans take everything for granted and never seem to learn until it too late. Today slaughterhouses are abusing animals in disturbing ways which has to change. I will agree with Singers concepts on animals because they have a right to live a peaceful life like humans; they have a life ahead of them once they are born. Singer argues that animals should have their interests considered throughout their lives. Singer wants to eliminate speciesism from our thoughts which is, a human discriminatory belief that all other animals are not as good as them therefore they do not have rights and we could do what we want to them. We should not be the only types of "animals" in this earth who has a set of rights we should abide.
"The Case For Animal Rights" written by Tom Regan, promotes the equal treatment of humans and non-humans. I agree with Regan's view, as he suggests that humans and animals alike, share the experience of life, and thus share equal, inherent value.
"In "All Animals Are Equal," Singer argues for the equality of all animals, on the basis of an argument by analogy with various civil rights movements, on the part of human beings. How does this argument go exactly, and what is Singer's precise conclusion? Is his argument successful? Why or why not? If you think it is successful, raise a residual potentially damaging objection, and respond on Singer's behalf (i.e., as a proponent of the position). And if not, how far does the argument go and/or how might it be improved? What has Singer taught us here, if anything?"
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 ...
Animals are so often forgotten when it comes to the many different levels of basic rights. No, they can’t talk, or get a job, nor can they contribute to society the way humans can. Yet they hold a special place in their owners’ hearts, they can without a doubt feel, show their different emotions, and they can most definitely love. In recent years there has been a massive increase in animal rights awareness, leading to a better understanding and knowledge in the subject of the humane treatment of animals. Where do humans draw the line between the concern of equality, and simple survival?
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.