The Equality of Animals As per Peter Singer, we need a insurgency in the way we people view and treat different species, particularly non human creatures. He needs us to perceive creatures as good equivalents. This thought is applicable to the american people, open in light of the fact that, of the way plant homestead creatures are consistently maltreated. In this paper I will demonstrate that the utilitarian moral argument proposed by Peter Singer in all animals are equal is truly flawless. I will inspect some of the objection against Singer 's position and weigh whether Peter Singers response to the objection. Emulating this I will contend that Singer 's origination of creatures interest, which is a fundamental piece of his contention, is correct. I will further contend for Singer that there are …show more content…
Animals, by and large, are in this category. When I am surfing far out from shore and a shark attacks, my concern for animals will not help; I am as likely to be eaten as the next surfer, though he may spend every Sunday afternoon taking potshots at sharks from a boat. Since animals cannot reciprocate, they are, on this view, outside the limits of the ethical contract”. Peter Singer’s response to this argument is that unlike animals, we humans have the ability to think and reason, which i think is a good argument, but where I think Peter Singer failed to argue is the idea of the animals interest. I feel like he did not do a good job of arguing that point of view because, animals are not the only ones that have interest. We can argue that trees and plants also have interest too. Something is in light of a legitimate concern for an organic life form in the event that it advances that life form
"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.
The most effective piece of this documentary, however, was neither the structure of the film nor the specific questions that one is forced to answer regarding the ethical treatment of these killer whales, but the overall questions of whether or not these corporations should be allowed to continue their cycle of abuse toward the animals and whether or not we, as patrons, should encourage their behavior by giving them a monetary profit every day, every month, and every year. Ignorance is forgivable, but with the knowledge given in this documentary: the final two questions raised should be able to answer themselves.
Regan, Tom. “The Case for Animal Rights.” In Animal Rights and Human Obligations, 2 ed.. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1989.
Throughout the last century the concern of animals being treated as just a product has become a growing argument. Some believe that animals are equal to the human and should be treated with the same respect. There are many though that laugh at that thought, and continue to put the perfectly roasted turkey on the table each year. Gary Steiner is the author of the article “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable”, that was published in the New York Times right before Thanksgiving in 2009. He believes the use of animals as a benefit to human beings is inhumane and murderous. Gary Steiner’s argument for these animal’s rights is very compelling and convincing to a great extent.
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...
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.
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
To begin, Peter Singer is widely known for popularizing the term “speciesism”, which is a term that views only humans as morally considered (Gruen, 2017). Singer emphasizes on how speciesism favours humans interests (Gruen, 2017). In a way, it is a form of discrimination. Rather than race, it is prejudice against species. Singer argues that by giving humans a special moral status and denying that to animals is unjust, and is what speciesism essentially is (Gruen, 2017). He provides examples as to how animals are constantly experimented on; such as applying electric shocks on them in order for them to perform several tasks, and monkeys having metal collars around their necks (Singer, 2009, p. 42, 44). Singer claims, from a scientific point of
...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.
In Francione and Charlton’s article, they discuss animal rights and the misconceptions people have towards the property of domesticated animals. They start the article by talking about Peter Singer, an author, who is considered to be the ‘father of the animal rights movement’. They argue against Singer as they believe he promotes animal welfare and not animal rights. The authors then explain their focus on animal rights which is the right of an animal not to be property. They argue that animals should have the same
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”. Before I continue, it is important to note the distinction that Singer makes between “equal considerations” and “equal treatment”. For Singer, “equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights”....
In this essay, I will discuss and define both speciesism and moral individualism in Paola Cavalieri’s book, The Animal Question. Additionally, I will provide my opinion on which is the strongest argument for speciesism and why I still disagree with it. 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. This view, that humans are of special moral status, is constantly attempted to be rationalized in various ways.
... concept. An animal cannot follow our rules of morality, “Perhaps most crucially, what other species can be held morally accontable” (Scully 44). As a race humans must be humane to those that cannot grasp the concept. Animals do not posess human rights but they posess the right to welfare and proper treatment by their handlers.
Peter Singer practices utilitarianism, he believes the consequence of an action matters more than the reason behind the action. Singer is trying to convince his audience to donate their money to end world poverty. He believes it is moral to give as much money as the person can give, allowing them to purchase just enough for them to live on, and this will be the right action to take. Singer is aiming toward the United States to contribute more to charity. Singer does not consider specific aspects that do not support his argument and causes his argument to not list specific aspects of his belief. Singer’s argument is not a good argument because he does not consider the ramifications of people donating their surplus of money would do to the economy; is it our duty to feed the poor; and that our moral intuitions are not consequentialist at all when it concerns what our rescue duties entail.
Humans place themselves at the top of the sociological tier, close to what we as individuals call our pets who have a sentimental value in our lives. Resource animal’s on the other hand have a contributory value within our lives: they provide us with meat and other important resources. In order to determine the boundaries between how we treat animals as pets and others simply as resources, utilitarians see these “resource animals” as tools. They contemplate the welfare significances of animals as well as the probable welfares for human-beings. Whereas deontologists see actions taken towards these “resources animals” as obligations regardless of whom or what they harm in the process. The objection to these theories are, whose welfare are we