preview

Singer Animal Rights

analytical Essay
875 words
875 words
bookmark

Equality has been long discussed and it has been an issue not only between species but also within the human race. Although the situation has change within humans, for animals is a whole different story. Animals are treated in several cruel ways ranging from abandoned pets to farming and testing on them. In this essay I intend to argue that Singer’s statement that the principle of equal consideration does not require equal treatment while demanding moral equality between us and the animals still incites equal treatment to achieve moral equality. Even though this equal treatment only takes place when like relevant interest are considered, the fact that it takes place at all signifies that animals are worth for them selves to some degree. Otherwise they would not have interests at all and we would not have to consider them and how they are affected by our actions. Hence, is it not an ethical position to say that we can achieve the demanded moral equality through equal consideration without equal treatment for animals.
Singer’s argument is constructed around the principle of equal consideration of interests. According to Singer the principle demands moral equality for non-human animals; though it is said that equal consideration of like relevant interests does not entail equal treatment. His argument is based on the fact that as long as the being is capable of suffering we are deemed to consider his/her interests and how they are affected by our actions. Hence, for Singer moral status is achieved through interests. Conversely for Singer, if the interests are not alike then we need not to treat humans and animals the same way. So how possibly can we say that we have achieved the demanded moral equality if there is not equal treatment....

... middle of paper ...

... preform the same experiments on orphaned disabled human beings. Aspect that takes us back to Singer’s moral equality demand through the principle of moral consideration in experimenting with animals; which cannot be achieved if there is no equal treatment, yet his argument assures that equal consideration it does not entail equal treatment.
Finally, I can say that Singer’s argument definitely helps to set the standard of a moral status for all non-human animals. However, the way this interests are meant to be considered without entailing equal treatment represent a problematic ethical position since we are not willing to grant same considerations to humans in similar of conditions to non-human animals. Moral equality cannot be achieved without equal treatment specially in animal testing since we are not willing to so the same humans, regardless of their condition.

In this essay, the author

  • Argues that singer's statement that the principle of equal consideration does not require equal treatment while demanding moral equality between us and the animals still incites equality.
  • Analyzes singer's argument around the principle of equal consideration of interests, which demands moral equality for non-human animals.
  • Opines that experimenting on animals is one of the most discussed topics in recent years. the treatment they receive has dubious ethical grounds.
  • Argues that moral equality is the main goal for singer's argument of the principle of equal consideration, but experimenting on animals is often where speciesim can be most clearly observed.
  • Analyzes how singer's theory demonstrates that animals' interests are being neglected in these practices, but it also drives him to deliver a utilitarian answer to justify the experiments.
  • Opines that singer's argument helps to set the standard of a moral status for all non-human animals. however, the way this interests are meant to be considered without entailing equal treatment is problematic ethical position.
Get Access