Singer's Argument Against Speciesism

It is in my opinion that speciesism is a “prejudice no less objectionable than racism or sexism. (prompt)” This is due to the fact that certain animals are victims and have direct moral standing, which is essential in proving prejudice for non-humans. My paper will examine this argument through Consequentialism, a side of Utilitarianism. In this we will provide direct evidence that animals who endure speciesism are discriminated against just like those who endure racism and sexism.

What exactly is speciesism? The concept is that one species will systematically discriminate against the members of another. According to “Disputed Moral Issues” by Mark Timmons, it depends on whether or not nonhuman animals have direct moral standing (Textbook,

His main point is that racism and sexism deny people equality by giving other members of the same species greater weight (Singer, 5). This is then explained in terms of animals being discriminated against in terms of food sources, according to Singer. He argues that human’s subject other species to torment purely for the satisfaction of taste. Through supporting these cruel practices of killing for food humans are discriminating against animals. Singer’s argument in his theory is based on the equality denial to certain individuals by another group who acts superior. This is exactly what speciesism is, discrimination against certain animals for the sake of human enjoyment. The viewpoint that Singer displays through the majority of this piece is Utilitarianism, which provides the perfect outline for why speciesism is

Philosophers, however, cannot prove that such a value exists. Singer in his work attempts to give a point of inquiry to this, but quickly concludes that it is almost impossible to state that animals don’t register pain or pleasure in the same ways that a human registers the feelings. Basically, since each species has the ability to feel pain and pleasure it is impossible to separate the human species from all other kinds due to that basic fact. Which means Singer disproved a theory before the evidence could be provided or created to support its basis in the first place. This means that there is no concrete argument that defeats