Singer Animal Liberation Summary

I do not find Singer's dispute against using animals for our needs persuasive; moreover, I consider some of his ideas to be appalling and degrading to the humankind. In his pursuit of "Animal Liberation," Singer claims that the distinctions between human and animals are irrelevant to the notion that we ought to treat all species equally. Instead, he is concentrating only on the ability to experience pain and suffering, as the convincing argument, which, in his opinion, ought to ensure equality between all the species populating the planet Earth. Singer dismisses his critics' arguments regarding utilizing higher intellectual features, such as a sense of justice and abstract thought, as a reason to consider human beings being superior to the

For instance, when trapped, a bird would be chirping in distress, indicating its pain and suffering. To Singer, its ability to express pain would manifest that the injured bird requires equal consideration with the humans. However, we would not hear a sound when the bird swallows the worm for breakfast, or pedestrian foot accidently grinds it out on the ground. Since the worms cannot communicate their feelings, or, possibly have no feelings at all, Singer would not express any particular interest in advocating for the preservation of their well-being. Perhaps, he would claim that invertebrate animals are not capable of the same emotions as birds, due to their lower capacity of their brains. To support his argument Singer goes with the trait, inherent only to the species to a higher level of intelligence. Somehow, Singer arrives at the central point of his reasoning that humans and animals deserve an equal amount of consideration, by utilizing sentience, an ability to experience pain. However, using such approach implies practicing discrimination between the species and giving preferential treatment to those organisms, who possess an ability to express feelings compared to those who do not. Thus, we