Peter Singer Response Paper

1470 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: The need of animal rights

EPeter Singer proposes that equal rights should be granted to all species, not just human beings. Singer names the discrimination of animals - speciesism and puts it in one row with racism and sexism. In this paper, I will present Singer's view and supporting arguments regarding the matter. Also, I will present an objection to his view and give my arguments to support it. In the last section, I will respond to the objection presented in the second section.
1. Clarification and Disambiguation
Peter Singer approaches the issue of animal rights from different angles. First of all, Singer defines his concept of speciesism. Speciesism is a discrimination where the interests of some certain species are given greater consideration than the interests …show more content…

For example, our interests come in the form of the desire to live and to avoid pain and suffering. The same is true about animals. They also have their needs, wishes, and desires. The equal consideration of interests, however, does not imply that the animals and humans will have equal rights. Many of the rights which human possess are simply beyond reach of the animals. For example, a cat should not be given equal consideration when applying for a job, simply because the cats neither apply for any jobs nor have the interest to do so. Also, this does not imply that the lives of animals and humans should have equal value. Singer claims that human life is more valuable than the life of an animal, a butterfly for example. Humans have greater capacities of feeling happiness and suffering, have greater rational capabilities and can plan their future and attain their goals, which animals aren't capable …show more content…

I will object to his claim that equal consideration should be given to animals and disabled individuals with severe brain damage, as well as infants because of their potential capacities. Singer briefly mentions the potential capacities that a creature might develop as one of the objections to his view, however when answering it, he misses the point. What makes the severely disabled individuals and infants different from animals is their potential to develop moral and rational capacities characteristic of a normal human being. This is what makes humans totally different from all animals – the moral capacity. None of the animals have morality as this is the form of the highest mental activity. Compared to the difference between moral and non-moral creatures, the differences between human individuals are insignificant. This, however, does not imply that infants and disabled individuals should be given greater consideration as they do not possess any moral capacity. However, they possess potential to develop it. While the application is clearer for the case of infants, the disabled also qualify for it. It is possible that if some kind of treatment is applied to the individuals with severe brain damage, they will start to recover and will eventually regain their normal moral and intellectual capacities. This kind of treatment might not yet exist, but it is possible that it will be created since the disabled have the

Show More
Related

  • The Case for Animal Rights

    850 Words  | 2 Pages

    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).

    Read More

  • Why Similarity Doesn't Mean Equality

    831 Words  | 2 Pages

    ... life. What we are able to do is treat all species with respect and do what we can so that they can thrive in a world that we have altered. We can preserve a species without alienating another. Preserving the Australian fauna at the cost of some feral dogs is the choice we have to make for the good of the biological make up of that region. Dogs themselves won’t go extinct and we’ve also eliminated a threat to other species including ourselves. 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

  • Animal Sentience and Equal Consideration of Interests

    1012 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Peter Singer Arguement That We are Speciesist

    1138 Words  | 3 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Nonhuman Animals

    1228 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Immanuel Kant's View Of Ethics And Philosophical Views Of Animal Ethics

    922 Words  | 2 Pages

    Mill would most likely take the same argumentative position, since they are both Utilitarians. Singer’s argument has three premises. First, if a being suffers, it has an interest to avoid suffering. Second, if a being has interests, we must give moral consideration to that thing. Third, both human and nonhuman animals have the capacity to suffer. The conclusion Singer comes to is that we must give equal moral consideration to both human and nonhuman animals. Does animal testing increase happiness and reduce suffering? Most often, the answer is no. So often it would be unethical. However, if there ever was a case in which it would increase happiness and reduce suffering, such as if testing on one animal could cure a disease 400 people have, that would be ethical, because Mill cares about the greatest good for the greatest number.

    Read More

  • Philosophy and the Morality of Abortion

    1931 Words  | 4 Pages

    To ascribe an entity with moral status ― whether an adult human, infant, foetus, or non-human animal ― is to declare that its treatment by other moral agents is mo...

    Read More

  • Kant Animal Captivity

    1197 Words  | 3 Pages

    In his essay ‘Three Wrong Leads in a Search for an Environmental Ethic: Tom Regan on Animal Rights, Inherent Values, and Deep Ecology’, Partridge claims that Singer and Regan both miss a significant element to the nature of rights: they only have a moral basis, not a biological basis. For Partridge, how alike human beings and other animals are in terms of biology is irrelevant. What matters instead is that other animals show no capacities of rationality or self-conscious, which is what makes us moral. For Partridge, this consequently excludes other animals from being rights

    Read More

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

    736 Words  | 2 Pages

    While if a cow is killed at thirty months, it is not more tragic than to be killed at forty, fifty, or sixty months, no one will say a thing. This prime example that humans are thought to be more superior, they think nothing of the cow and how he suffers. So Singer rephrases his argument to compare a human with low cognitive ability and a cow, they both do not have plans for the future, so the new argument would be the difference between killing a human and a human with severe mental retardation. This although may raise a lot of controversy, but it is the say as the humans and nonhuman. Singer also says the capability to suffer is a big aspect of life. Every living animal has the ability to suffer, meaning humans and nonhumans are very similar. Whether it is a human or a nonhuman, when they lose someone close to them, you see a change in their

    Read More

  • Peter Singer, And Tom Regan, Peter Singer And Aldo Leopold

    1133 Words  | 3 Pages

    Within the guidelines of utilitarianism, Singer’s approach appears to harmonize, as he believed the goal in life should be to attain happiness and when the desirable level is reached, one should pay it forward. However, to the dismay of many, he believed that one born to pain and suffrage could not reach such pleasure therefore, had nothing to contribute to the environment and hence, such a life need not be continued and such a life furthered, would only be a strain on happiness. Singer’s judgement on moral behavior was that bringing pain into the world would only consume positive energy and could not further the benefits of happiness as, it is absent. In thinking that one’s existence should benefit environmental ethics as a whole or to those who need it most, Singer has said, “It is not enough that an environmental policy conform to the principles of some or other environmental ethic, it should conform to the correct, or best justified, one.” (p.285) Singer is also inclusive to animals within his statement as he considered animals just as equal in nature as humans. Essentially, he had a vision of animals being free from cruelties and exploitations such as factory farming. Extending happiness, to him, was meant only for people and creatures that could share it and, in accordance to his philosophy, deserved it in efforts to amplify well-being. Singer’s morally confusing ethics have added a unique wing in the developments of environmental ethics that, if anything, indulge in daring thoughts and help refine the purpose of

    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

  • Comparing Descartes Limitrophy And Singer's

    1182 Words  | 3 Pages

    Since “the claim of equality does not depend on intelligence, moral capacity, physical strength, or similar matters of fact,” equality becomes a matter of morality, “not a simple assertion of fact” that Descartes uses to argue that human reasoning and language are justifications for human superiority over animals (Singer, 3). Furthermore, Singer emphasizes how “an imbecile may have no characteristics superior to those of a dog, but this does not make the imbecile a member of a “different species” as the dog is” in order to convey how differentiating humans and animals on the basis of intellectual “abilities, differing abilities to communicate effectively and differing capacities to experience pleasure and pain” is fundamentally impossible, as the

    Read More

  • Equality in Peter Singer´s All Animals are Equal

    2024 Words  | 5 Pages

    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”.

    Read More

  • The Problem With Speciesism

    1118 Words  | 3 Pages

    This view, that humans are of special moral status, is constantly attempted to be rationalized in various ways. One such defense is that we are not morally wrong to prioritize our needs before the needs of nonhuman animals for “the members of any species may legitimately give their fellows more weight than they give members of other species (or at least more weight than a neutral view would grant them). Lions, too, if they were moral agents, could not then be criticized for putting other lions first” (Nozick, 79). This argument, that we naturally prefer our own kind, is based on the same fallacy used by racists while defending their intolerant beliefs and therefore should be shown to have no logical merit.

    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

More about Peter Singer Response Paper

Open Document