All Animals Are Equal Essay

47). The supposedly medical nature of these studies, with the corresponding chance for advancing the health of the human species, is overcome by the fact that “animal models have questionable accuracy” (Singer, Animal Liberation, p. 58). A particularly chilling take-away from the studies Singer lists is that most of them end with a note along the lines of ‘further experimentation necessary’, implying that the researchers are involved in a self-fulfilling negative cycle where their personal pursuit for grant money, publication in peer reviewed journals, and the elusive accolades of their colleagues far overshadows the immense amount of suffering their studies are causing. Indeed, Singer presents his argument in a convincing format, with one account surpassing the next in its sheer lack of consideration for animals as living creatures. This reinforces his argument that humans are speciesists, prone to causing harm to non-humans without a thought if it means a slight (perceived) enhancement in their own state.

Is it ethical for animals to have the same rights as humans? During this paper I will present the views of both sides. I will try my best to give the reader a chance to come to there own unbiased conclusion. I will talk about the key areas of animal ethics. I will present the facts and reasoning behind the arguments over Animal cruelty, testing, hunting, and improper housing. My conclusion will hopefully bring us closer to answering many of the question surrounding “Animal Rights and Ethics”.

There are many reasons on why I support his claim. For instance, The article states, “They feel pain, suffer,and experience stress, affection, excitements and even love.” This can change the way we see animals because animals are just like humans with the same emotions and feelings. Animals are also very similar with cognitive abilities as humans. For

The fundamental question that defined the content of the article was "What gives us the right to exploit other organisms as we see fit?" (Suzuki, 2008, p.681). Humanity had a long history of using animals in testing due to biological similarities (Suzuki, 2008, p. 680). He put a mirror to people by questioning the ways animals were treated in those scenarios, and if the methods and product were worth the suffering of animals. To do this he looked at examples of scientific studies to alleviate human illness, as well as use of animals for entertainment. By contrasting the harsh realities animals face with the rationalization of their captors, the article underlined not only humanity's unlimited capacity for cruelty but also the factors that allow it to keep on doing the same thing no matter what the truth of the matter is. The article was written for those who those who do not know about the scientific exploitation of animals as well as those who have not in the past seen the idea of captivity and scientific treatment of

Throughout history, humans have utilized nonhuman animals for the benefit of mankind. This tendency increased as civilization developed, and presently, necessitated by staggering population growth and technological progress, human use of animals has skyrocketed. We eat them, we breed them, we use them as test subjects. Some people have begun to question the ethics of it all, sparking a debate on animal treatment and whether or not they have rights. In a paper on the subject, Carl Cohen lays out his definition of rights, explains their relationship with obligations, and uses these ideas to present the argument that manifests clearly in his piece’s title, “Why Animals Have No Rights”. THESIS

many of our fellow creatures are more like us than we have ever imagined. They feel pain, suffer and experience stress, affection, excitement and even love…” (1). This statement can also be proven through science. Just like humans, animals also have “the same types of nociceptors… A-delta and C fibers...” (Victoria Braithwaite 1). These nociceptors are used to detect pain. If animals display many of the same qualities as humans and feel pain, they should be treated more humanely.

Since we cannot communicate in an effective way to these animals, some people find it hard to believe that animals really do experience subjectivity. However, it seems that every person can understand that animals such as dogs, cats, and primates seek pleasure and avoid pain. These two ideas are contradictions of each other because if an animal seeks to enhance its subjective experience, it must follow that they do have a similar subjective experience as humans. Not surprisingly, just like the mentally retarded children that were previously mentioned, even if these animals cannot solve complex math problems, read or write, or compose music that these animals are still subjects of life. It follows that if these animals are subjects of life that they should also fall into the domain of equality of

However, their ultimate goals differ greatly from one another, in the way that Singer’s proposition would only add to the overpopulation problem that Hardin wants to avoid. If we were to take consideration of the vast animal population this new approach would only further deplete the commons Hardin wants to so desperately conserve. Hardin explains that, “A finite world can support only a finite population; therefore, population growth must eventually equal zero” (30). In Singer’s world, this finite population just grew exponentially. Given that animals tend to breed much quicker than humans, how could we ever keep up with their ever-growing demand? Furthermore, Hardin and Singer deviate from one another in their approach of trying to persuade the views of their readers. Singer explains in great detail the mistreatment of animals in farms and testing laboratories, this approach clearly uses imagery as a way to appeal to his readers through ethos. Hardin does not worry about appealing to the feelings of his reader, nor does he care whether his audience is insulted by his blunt and extreme views about society. While Singer is well-known for deliberately provoking his audience, it is very evident in his writing that he cares deeply for the lives of animals. He reasons that the mere fact that animals can feel pain is reason alone to consider them part of our society, this shows a deep emotional bond to

Behavioural development in animals undergoing domestication is characterized by changes in the quantitative rather than qualitative nature of responses (Price, 1999). When being ridden McGreevy et al., (2009) found that horses may be that at their most dangerous (e.g., when bolting and bucking), ridden horses have simply reverted to responses within the predator model. This is interesting because it suggests that no matter how ethologically parallel in-hand work may be, a ridden horse can later revert to these counter–predator responses, seemingly confirming that ridden work may not be emphatically within, the horse’s ethogram. It could also suggest that whatever performance enhancing products are used, will the horse just revert back to these behaviours regardless. This shows that when the dialogue between horses and humans is consistent there is a positive correlation with relaxation and rapport. Inter-specific communication may help the horses overcome their fear and therefore reduce the tendency to use counter-predator responses. When the horse shows something of its own intention, it is often seen from a human perspective to be undermining the human-horse interaction. What horse people erroneously consider examples of reasoning in their horses, turn out to be excellent examples of trial-and-error

Speciesism is a prejudice for or against a certain species. It is the belief that all and only human beings have moral status. Peter Singer, in “All Animals are Equal”, points out that people are contradicting themselves when they make the argument that non-human animals do not deserve the same rights as humans just because animals do not have the same intellectual abilities as us. Singer points out that humans come with different moral capacities and intellectual abilities, such as humans with irreparable brain damage and infant humans, so if people were to argue that animals don’t deserve the same equality as humans because they are basing it on actual equality, then humans who lack certain abilities and characteristics would also not deserve the same equality.

This means that, as well as humans, animals can feel pain and in the end humans are just another kind of animal. As professor Peter Singer wrote in his book ‘Animal Liberation’, there is no possible way to experience anyone else’s pain as it is a ‘mental state’; it is intangible and cannot be seen but rather judged and interpreted by external indicators (Singer, 1990, p. 15). But if it is legitimate to consider that humans feel pain, is there any logic in why a comparable conclusion should not be defensible in the case of animals? In fact, animal cases are potentially the worst as they cannot act against their perpetrator; they are not usually given the right of being thought of as feeling beings and opposite from humans they cannot ask for help. Every year, there are more than 300,000 falling victims worldwide, where the cases not reported, meaning that the affliction and damaged inflicted on the animals is not only perpetual but also invisible and insignificant to the world when, in reality, there are no good reasons, scientific or philosophical, for denying that animals feel pain and that therefore, should not be mistreated. If humans do not question that other humans feel pain then they should not doubt that other animals do so as well (Singer, 1990). This is the reason why animal rights have been debated over years, with a growing number of organisations and campaigns having compromised to protect them. Indeed, it is an important value which has to be emphasized as

He adds that an object that cannot suffer or have any feeling whatsoever, is not included. This may mean that an object that is not living cannot be compared to an animal. In addition, Singer recognizes that it is better for scientists to experiment on animals than on humans. He says, “Normal adult human beings have mental capacities that will, in certain circumstances, lead them to suffer more than animals would in the same circumstances” (Singer, 59). This is because humans get a dreading feeling because they know what is going to happen to them. Animals do not feel the anticipation, because they do not have the same mental capacity that an adult human has. Basically, he is saying that humans suffer more because we have a better memory which causes us to remember things we have heard of or experienced, and because we have better knowledge of what will happen. However, he insists that this does not make the killing of an animal right (Singer, 59).

One view that is taken upon animals is that they cannot feel anything, so therefore, it does not hurt the animal but more the owner—in the view of pets. (E, p. 533) He explains that the owner of the pet feels more pain about the injured pet then that of the animals injury, and continues to explain that this viewpoint is irrelevant because pain is where it is felt, physiologically. The only reason that the belief is held is because the owner of the pet has a moral obligation to ensure the pets safety, and that the owner can actually do something about it—this is the subconscious view of the owner. He then tries to give some points on how animals should be treated. He argues that there is this “cruelty-kindness view” in that he states “…we have a direct duty to be kind to animals and a direct duty not to be cruel to them.” (E, p. 536) This view seems to have a valid argument but his argument begins to fail as he blurs the lines of human and animal interests during his argument to support this. However, Peter Singer has some level of agreement but takes a different stance.

For the past 20 years, there has a been an on going heated debate on whether experiments on animals for the benefit of medical and scientific research is ethical. Whether it is or isn't, most people believe that some form of cost-benefit test should be performed to determine if the action is right. The costs include: animal pain, distress and death where the benefits include the collection of new knowledge or the development of new medical therapies for humans. Looking into these different aspects of the experimentation, there is a large gap for argument between the different scientists' views. In the next few paragraphs, both sides of the argument will be expressed by the supporters.

During the class discussion on Singer’s, “All animals are equal” made me very interested in Singer’s arguments. There were many topics which I agree with him, like the suffering of all beings deserving of equal consideration. Most people are speciesist and speciesism is morally wrong. However, I nonetheless find myself from time to time conflict with him. One of the argument he claimed that the anguish of a creature does not merit measure up to view as the agony of a human. But, all the animals have interest, which means they avoid pain and suffer. Also, every living thing wants to live in this world with prosperity and no one has right to take away their rights from them. That is why I strongly believe that the suffering of animals is equal in regard to the suffering of humans because every living thing wants to live and they have the right to live.