Animal Suffering In Peter Singer's All Animals Are Equal

In today’s day and age humans find themselves as being higher up in the hierarchy for decent reason. This leads to the issue of whether human beings are worth more than animals and animal suffering. While humans possess the moral capacity to understand moral thought, an issue rises with this. Does animal suffering, if we choose to assume that as moral agents human beings are obligated to include animal suffering in our choices such as Peter Singer speaks of in his essays on animal equality, become less important when used to progress science and perhaps human well-being? On the most basic thought processes most people would say yes because humans are more important than animals. Though looking deeper makes it harder to determine the morality

Expanding this thought process, the moral thinking that animal suffering should be included in rational decision making, past the realm of simply whether or not eating animals is ethically wrong leads us to other places where animal suffering may prove helpful to human life. This such place being examined is the medical experimentation field. Animals are being bred and created just to usually live short, painful lives. The animals are treated with varying degrees of concern for their well being. The mass suffering of the animals, not just for a short time remember usually the suffering lasts for years, in some eyes are seen is seen as a necessary evil on the road to medical and scientific development. This thought process falling from the hierarchy of species that has ingrained itself in human minds, the idea that humans are the most important and worthy, and thus any suffering of “inferior creatures” should not be considered when there is the possibility for advancement. This idea however is a flaw in moral

This is not the truth. There are multitudinous opportunities for testing to be performed without the use of animals or humans. Many of these options even turn out to be cheaper than the use of animal test subjects. These can include in vitro methods, computer simulation, micro-dosing (dosing humans with minuscule amounts of drugs to see the effects on the molecular level), and non-invasive imaging such as MRIs and CT Scans. With this information, another of Singer’s points on consuming animal meat can be applied to the testing question. Singer makes the point of saying that if there was a necessity for a human to eat an animal it would be permissible (given that the human tried to reduce the suffering of the animal), but since in the contemporary world there is no necessity and there are plenty of alternatives to animal protein, Singer asserts that there should not be any animal eating in modern society. Using this logic, it shows that animal testing, when there are alternatives, is morally