Individualism In The Singer's Argument Of Speciesism

Singer’s argument in favor of the claim that speciesism is false can be formulated as follows. Singer comments that a requirement for equality is to have interests. In order to have interests, the being must be able to suffer. Animals are capable of suffering, therefore they have interests. Since animals have interests, they meet the requirement for equality. Humans base their criteria for equality on being actual human beings. Singer proposes that to just be a human is not the requirement of being equal because humans are different in moral codes, shapes, sizes, intellectual abilities and genetic make-up. Since humans are different from one another, in his view, then it cannot be a plausible reason to treat all humans equally because they belong to the same species. However, all

If a being can suffer, as both humans and animals can, therefore they have interests. That maybe, but animals have only basic interests such as food, water, territory and mating. Humans, along with the basic animal interests, have more complex interests such as careers, increasing wealth, acquiring material objects, and increase their knowledge. Humans have more interests than animals, therefore they should have more rights. But animals should not have rights, but instead be treated well of morality. We have the reason, logic, and action to do what we please to animals. But our morality is what tells us to not harm animals for personal pleasure. If we must harm an animal, then it’s for a greater good, such as experimenting research to find cures. Not only do animals not have rights, they cannot practice the rights that humans have. In a democracy, the humans have a right to vote. Animals cannot vote because they do not care about politics what so ever. Animals also cannot vote because they are not intelligent enough to vote for a candidate. Therefore, Cohen’s objections are successful to Singer’s