According To Singer's Argument For Animal Rights

Peter Singer’s argument is that all animals are equal and should be treated as such. He begins to build his argument by defining “equality”. Equality entails “equal consideration” for a being’s interests, with the potential for different treatment. Consider the difference in treatment between men and women in regards to abortion rights. Women have the right to get an abortion while men do not. This is not a difference in equality, but simply recognition of the fact that it could be in the interest of women to get one. Men on the other hand, have no desire or ability for this right. Singer

Equality and fairness should be two desirable qualities that go hand in hand. The essay “All Animals Are Equal,” Peter Singer takes the concept that we should extend the fundamental principles that are handed to humans to other species. Every person should have equality; I believe that this is true and we should continue this courtesy outside the realms of humankind, animals. I agree with Singer’s point that humans and animals should be treated with the same amount of respect. As Singer points out in his argument, having equality and fairness are two separate concepts. This is true because things that make us equal are things that are on a metaphysical level.

In Peter Singer’s article, All Animals are Equal, Singer claims that animals deserve the same equal rights and respect that the human lives get. His strongest argument is defined by all animals, human or non-human shall be defined as equal. Singer makes some very strong arguments within his article, but I feel some of his statements are humanist. As an animal lover and mother to two pets, I disagree that not all animals or living things endure the same amount. However, I do agree that animals do deserve the rights to live lives as animals should. This paper will analyze Singer’s argument in relation to the specific issue of animal equal rights. It will also include the counterarguments I have against his claims of his article.

The idea that all humans are born equal has been something that has been almost installed in our minds. However, in the eyes of Peter Singer, we as humans are constantly violating our own moral code in the way we treat animals. Singer refers to this as speciesism and compares our treatment of animals to the same way sexists and racists treat those who they deem inferior. He also argues that the grounds on which they base their prejudice on are equally fragile. He illustrates this by comparing speciesists to racists. He recalls, “The racists violates the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of his own race…similarly the speciesist allows the interests of his own species to override the greater interests of members of another species” (53.) He initiates this argument by explaining how our willingness to declare all humans as equal when the opposite is fundamentally true. Singer writes, “Like it or not, we must face the fact that humans come in different shapes and sizes; they come with differing moral capacities, differing intellect…if the demand for equality was based on the actual equality of all human beings, we would have to stop demanding equality” (51). Singer seeks to establish that our push for equality ends once the being in question is no longer human. Once he establishes this, he can quickly draw parallels between our unequal treatment of animals and humans. He evolves what initially begins as a far-fetched claim to a nuanced and

Moral equality is thought to give weight to equal interests while factual equality is solely based on the facts. According to Singer, moral equality is not grounded in factual equality. He refers to previous liberations like the African-American liberation and the women's liberation to draw from. If factually humans were all considered equal it would mean no one has any superior talents or skills over another person. This however, is not true in terms of characteristics. All humans have characteristics that make them different from others in more ways than one. Just because a human may seemingly have a higher intellectual level than another it still is not grounds to exploit them. If lesser intelligence cannot be used to morally discriminate against humans, then at

Peter Singer’s article, titled “All Animals Are Equal,” takes an approach on the long standing debate of human versus animal equality. His stance is strong and clear. Humans must not experiment on nonhuman animals (hereinafter referred to as ‘animals’) because they should be treated as equals: “equal, that is, to each other and to humans” (Singer 112). Singer appears to be both ignorant and mistaken in his discussion of animal rights. Instead of focusing on the positives that come from animal experimentation, he instead focuses solely on the ethics behind it. Though this ethical debate is not new, and many have concluded that it is, in sorts, a necessary evil, Singer still attempts to persuade the reader. His arguments are unsound, and his reasoning far-fetched, as Carl Cohen argues in his article, “The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research.” One of Singer’s specific arguments is that speciesism and racism can be compared to one another because they are equal in their discriminatory actions. This is not only untrue, but it also diminishes the struggles of suffering from racist acts by further encouraging the thought that black people are not equals to anyone but animals.

Proponents say animal testing has helped save many people and animals. That there is no other way to test cures and commercial object, and with strict regulations, they do not mistreat the animals. Opponents say it is cruel and they do not follow the rules of the law as they are supposed to. There are many different ways to research without the usage of animals. The AWA, the Animal Welfare Act, was passed in 1966. Animal testing started in five hundred BC. They use to say causing pain on animals was offensive to the gods. In the 1940's many monkeys died going into space. Luckily in 1951 Yorick the monkey lived and came but unharmed. To this day many people debate this topic, but mostly people are leaning now towards saving the

Singer claims that we should understand the concept of equality as a reason for accepting or endorsing the conclusion of his argument that any being with sentience should be granted equal moral consideration. What he means by this is that the concept of equality is a moral ideal and not a simple assertion of fact (Singer 52).

The purpose of equality is not that everyone is the same but that everyone is given a fair treatment. Equality, “does not depend on intelligence, moral capacity, physical strength, or similar matters of fact”(Singer 363). If this is considered true, then animals, despite their differences, deserve equality as well. I believe that these points made by Singer as a whole have sound logic, but I will now explain where I agree and disagree with his arguments.

Singer starts the article by challenging the reader's idea of the last form of discrimination; too many the last form of discrimination was sex-based but to Singer that is not the case. He believes people false consciously accept sexism as the last form of discrimination because there are no other groups of women that have advocated for rights, but people fail to realize oppression and discrimination go unnoticed until the group being mistreated points out the mistreatment. People look past the mistreatment of animals because animals cannot advocate for their rights. He refers to the discrimination against animals as speciesism; speciesism is the innate superiority of a species (homo sapiens) to another species without a solid foundation other than self-interest. Just like a racist places the self-interest of members of their own race superior to members of another race, a speciesist places the self-interest of members of their own species superior to another species. He continues by saying people are often confused when talking about animal rights; are we supposed to give animals the right to vote? He explains this concern by bringing up a woman’s right to an abortion. Woman have the right to an abortion

Singer compares discrimination between humans to the moral injustice that humans have shown animals. Singer examines the idea of blacks and women command equality because they have the same ability to be leaders, to rationalize, the same intellect as whites and males. However, animals do not have the same ability to compete for leadership with humans. Since humans and animals do not have same intelligence and capabilities, one could infer animals should be treated less humane, according to the definition of justice. Justice requires that one must treat their equals equally, and since animals are not equal to humans in any moral aspect, then we can philosophically consider that the immoral treatment between humans and animals is not injustice. Thus, the argument between moral equality and factual arises. Moral equality exists because every human has

On the other hand, I believe Carl Cohen has better arguments for animal research use. He agrees that animals are aware of feeling pain, and suffering, but he disagrees that although animals are sharing these traits with humans does not mean that they are morally equal to humans. Cohen thinks people are mistaking animal’s rights because they are confused between rights and obligations; so they guess that due to the accountability to animals that humans have, they believe that animals do have rights. This false prediction is based on false logic. Cohen explains the differences between obligation and right, one as something we ought to do and the other as what others properly order that we do. Cohen states that the moral agents on this planet

On the other hand, Carl Cohen, who is a philosopher who against animal rights, concludes that if humans do not use animals to help them for living, they will suffer more. If humans want to against human’s right, they have to be ready to not consuming whether intentionally or unintentionally animals. In medical field, it will be impossible to find cures for human if the scientists do not test it to other beings, in this case, animals. According to Cohen, humans use animal for their experiment because animals are not able to have moral decisions. Also, animals are not capable of exercising or responding to moral claims, and they cannot have any rights. Whereas human, on the other hand, are capable of moral claims, and they are eligible to have

He argues that animals lack rights, and by not infringing upon non-existent rights, then it is ethical to do experimental testing on them. He defines a right as the ability to do or make moral claims against one another, and have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty. According to Cohen, animals do not have this capacity, but humans do. While he argues that it is important to treat animals humanely, it is not the same as treating them as humans or the holders of rights. Cohen addresses the idea that his claims may be in favor of speciesism, which is to give unjust preference to one species over another.

Where I do not disagree with the basis of Singer’s argument, I do disagree with some of the minor facts used to support this argument. I disagree with the notion that the human race is ready to do anything to another species in order to satisfy our taste, that non-human animals are seen like machines and they are kept in unsuitable conditions. In general, Singer’s argument seems to be based on vague points and generalizes the human population.