Animal rights have always been a topic of controversy. It is unclear whether animals have the same rights as humans or if they are not entitled to the same treatment. A person’s opinion can have a lot to do with their take on speciesism. Many object to the idea because they do not believe it is possible for humans and animals to share similar rights. I will argue with Peter Singer’s argument for equal consideration and the right to no suffering among all species. Speciesism is believing that each species has their own rights and consideration and that there is no comparison between, in this case, animals and humans. According to Singer, nearly all humans are a speciesist in one way or another. Most humans are speciesist because they find it easier to kill an animal than a human. On the topic of speciesism, he …show more content…
Equality among various species does not necessarily require the same treatment, but rather the same consideration. Equal consideration means there is different types of rights and treatment based on the species. (Singer, p473) This is where many people object with Singer’s argument. Most often, people do not agree that we can compare the rights of humans and animals. For instance, animals do not have the right to vote or right of speech like humans do. They believe humans and nonhumans are too vastly different to share the same rights. Though they are not wrong that animals and humans have different rights, in is irrelevant to compare such rights. For instance, if someone believes men and women should have equal rights and believes in the permissible to female to have an abortion, in the same context, they would have to believe that it is permissible for a male to have one. That statement is absurd because it is impossible for a male to be in that situation, therefore it is meaningless to compare. (Singer, p473) A right that both animals and humans share is the right to have an interest in not
"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.
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.
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.
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
The two topics I chose to discuss are animal rights and. I completed my study on Equality for animals by Peter Singer. Singer feels that there is no moral justification for any being suffering. Everyone or thing has the right to be happy and experience enjoyment. One species may suffer more than the other. It is only meal time for people living in our modern society. Animals are eaten for the luxury of people taste. A vegetarian’s diet helps the argument of cruelty to animals. Chickens, pork, cattle are caged without any sources for the outdoor life. They are caged and reared on a factory farm. There is no free ranging to support the animal life style. Factory farming is an industrial operation that raises animals
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 2015 there was a court case based on two chimpanzees, and if they should have the same rights as a human being. Animals having similar rights as humans is something really commonly talked about. Animals don’t really get treated the best ways at times. In the book “Animal Liberation” by Peter Singer has a good point of how equality doesn’t need similar treatment, but an equal consideration.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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
To conclude this paper then, after reviewing the reasons for being opposed to assigning rights to non-human animals I am still faithfully for the idea. There is no justification for the barbaric and insensitive ways to which we have been treating the non-human animals with over the decades. As I stated before, they are living creatures just as we are, they have families, emotions and struggles of their own without the ones we inflict on them. So then where does this leave us? Of course it is a complicated mater, but none the less non-human animals should be protected with rights against them being used as machines, for food, for their skins, their wool, and all cases in which they are being abused.