Peter Singer Accepted The Principle Of Equality

320 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: The need of animal rights

Peter Singer suggests that “having accepted the principle of equality as a sound moral basis for relations with others of our own species, we are also committed to accepting it as a sound moral basis for relations with those outside our own species- the nonhuman animals.” (Singer, p. 1) Singer is right, and makes a strong case when he claims that we should give the same respect to the lives of nonhumans as we do to the lives of humans. The first argument that Singer makes is for extending the principle of equality beyond our own species. Thus meaning, we should treat nonhuman (animals) with equal consideration because nonhuman have the same capacity for suffering as due humans. This is true due to the fact that nonhumans are capable

Show More
Related

  • The Case for Animal Rights

    850 Words  | 2 Pages

    In conclusion, I agree with Tom Regan’s perspective of the rights view, as it explores the concept of equality, and the concept of rightful treatment of animals and humans. If a being is capable of living, and experiencing life, then they are more than likely capable of feeling pleasure and pain, except in a few instances. If humans are still treated in a respectable and right way even if some cannot vote, or think for themselves, then it is only fair that animals who also lack in some of these abilities be treated as equals. As Regan puts it, “pain is pain, wherever it occurs” (1989).

    Read More

  • Why Similarity Doesn't Mean Equality

    831 Words  | 2 Pages

    Species egalitarianism is an easily outmoded form of communicating treatment of species because of all the questions and speculation it ultimately raises. The equivocation of animals is absurd. We can’t compare them because of all their fundamental differences, and to do so is insulting to all species that fall below the parameters we instill. Ultimately, there is no possible situation in which species egalitarianism is correct.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Peter Singer's Famine, Affluence, And Welfare

    732 Words  | 2 Pages

    While I agree with Singer 's argument in principle, I have a problem with his conclusion. In my view, the conclusion that Singer espouses is underdeveloped. For instance, when Singer talks about the strong and weak

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Giving To The Poor By Peter Singer

    1111 Words  | 3 Pages

    He comes to this conclusion through his un-satisfaction with the world we currently live in. Singer takes a strong awareness towards the impoverished and proclaims that that should not be the case when there are people living

    Read More

  • Peter Singer's Argument On Moral Obligation

    480 Words  | 1 Pages

    I both agree and disagree with Peter Singer. While I believe that we do have a moral obligation to help others, I also believe we have a moral obligation to leave other people alone and let them get on with their lives.

    Read More

  • Critical Analysis Of Peter Singer's Famine, Affluence, And Poverty

    971 Words  | 2 Pages

    To back up this argument, Singer gives a simple example. Imagine you are walking home one day and you see a young child drowning in a shallow pond. Singer obviously says that you ought to walk over to the water and save the child in danger.

    Read More

  • Morality of Giving

    1069 Words  | 3 Pages

    Singer's argument appears to be mainly an appeal to logos, in his argument he reasons why he thinks it is morally required of people to give for famine relief and other needs. However, his argument relies heavily on pathos as well. The main thrust of his argument is this “If I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child dro...

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Singer Arguments For Solving World Poverty

    1111 Words  | 3 Pages

    In this paper I will argue that Singers arguments for solving world poverty are unrealistic for most people, not just those people in a well-off nation as America. Singer’s arguments are based on a Utilitarian Philosophic point of view, where he believes and practices the morally expected acts of kindness to our fellowmen. He does this through donating most of his salary to charities and argues that we should strive to do the same, but digress and argues the grave challenge that we face in our decision to adopt his philosophy. He concludes that all humans, specifically us in America faces the predicament of how we should act as it relates to how much we give to suffering

    Read More

  • Critical Analysis Of Peter Singer's Speciesism And Moral Status

    736 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Peter Singer, And Tom Regan, Peter Singer And Aldo Leopold

    1133 Words  | 3 Pages

    Within the guidelines of utilitarianism, Singer’s approach appears to harmonize, as he believed the goal in life should be to attain happiness and when the desirable level is reached, one should pay it forward. However, to the dismay of many, he believed that one born to pain and suffrage could not reach such pleasure therefore, had nothing to contribute to the environment and hence, such a life need not be continued and such a life furthered, would only be a strain on happiness. Singer’s judgement on moral behavior was that bringing pain into the world would only consume positive energy and could not further the benefits of happiness as, it is absent. In thinking that one’s existence should benefit environmental ethics as a whole or to those who need it most, Singer has said, “It is not enough that an environmental policy conform to the principles of some or other environmental ethic, it should conform to the correct, or best justified, one.” (p.285) Singer is also inclusive to animals within his statement as he considered animals just as equal in nature as humans. Essentially, he had a vision of animals being free from cruelties and exploitations such as factory farming. Extending happiness, to him, was meant only for people and creatures that could share it and, in accordance to his philosophy, deserved it in efforts to amplify well-being. Singer’s morally confusing ethics have added a unique wing in the developments of environmental ethics that, if anything, indulge in daring thoughts and help refine the purpose of

    Read More

  • Carl Cohen's Do Animals Have Rights?

    722 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...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.

    Read More

  • Equality in Peter Singer´s All Animals are Equal

    2024 Words  | 5 Pages

    Singer makes a three-part argument for why “All Animals Are Equal”, or at the very least should be granted equal consideration. Firstly, he argues that, assuming all humans are awarded equal rights, there is no single characteristic apart from being human that grants them such rights. Secondly, he argues that awarding rights by virtue of humanity is arbitrary and speciesist. 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”.

    Read More

  • The Problem With Speciesism

    1118 Words  | 3 Pages

    This view, that humans are of special moral status, is constantly attempted to be rationalized in various ways. One such defense is that we are not morally wrong to prioritize our needs before the needs of nonhuman animals for “the members of any species may legitimately give their fellows more weight than they give members of other species (or at least more weight than a neutral view would grant them). Lions, too, if they were moral agents, could not then be criticized for putting other lions first” (Nozick, 79). This argument, that we naturally prefer our own kind, is based on the same fallacy used by racists while defending their intolerant beliefs and therefore should be shown to have no logical merit.

    Read More

  • Vivisection Essay

    739 Words  | 2 Pages

    According to the philosopher Peter Singer, speciesists treat human interests as more fundamental than other nonhuman animals interests; therefore, speciesists ignore the interests of other species where no great benefit to human interests is concerned (Singer 279). For instance, the BUAV claims that experiments like sewing kittens’ eyelids together to study amblyopia have been done many years ago, and yet no cure has been found (Hanlon 1). As a result, Singer argues nonhuman animals are regarded as only “an item of laboratory equipment” (281). Many of the experiments on animals are carried out for rather trivial interests such that speciesists give the weight of nonhuman animals less weight than the interests of human beings. Singer asserts that human beings need to apply the principle of equal consideration of interests to animals to give equal weight on them (Singer 277). Singer’s theory of equal consideration of interests is extremely useful because it sheds insight on vivisection since the fundamental issue in how human may treat animals is whether they suffer and such that pains of animals and humans deserve equal considerations (Singer 278). Whether it’s poultry farming or vivisection, sentient animals have interests of not experiencing pain or suffering (Singer 278). According to Hanlon, animal recruits lead better lives and better deaths in laboratory than in poultry

    Read More

  • Equal Consideration of Interests and Our Moral Obligation

    675 Words  | 2 Pages

    Peter Singer’s argument for animal equality is mainly dependent on the principle of equality. The principle of equality states that we as humans are all equal in a moral sense, meaning that we are each permitted to equal consideration of our interests. Singer also states that the principle of equality cannot only depend on specific qualities of humans (such as race), which would mean that it cannot only be applied to humans either. By this, Peter Singer means that non-human animals should also receive equal consideration of their interests, but only if they are sentient. Anything that is sentient is able to feel both pain and pleasure. In my opinion, sentience is the most important part of Singer’s entire argument because it gives clear reason to why most of the human race should become vegetarian. Singer’s argument for vegetarianism (and just his beliefs in general) is based completely on utilitarianism. He would argue that by eating meat, we do not maximize overall pleasure and actually causes unnecessary suffering. The reason that the suffering is unnecessary is that ...

    Read More

More about Peter Singer Accepted The Principle Of Equality

Open Document