Analysis Of Peter Singer 's ' Animal Liberation

The other half of Singer’s notion that our society is speciesist rests on how humans treat animals to produce food. “Factory farming” techniques cause “animals [to] lead miserable lives from birth to slaughter” (Singer, Animal Liberation, p.

Even though Singer uses speciesism to explain the lack of empathy towards animals, a counterargument to his theory exists in Marina Keegan’s essay “Why We Care About Whales.” Keegan points out that a tremendous amount of money goes towards the rescue of beached whales when it could go towards helping humanity and other more dire issues. The question becomes whether or not our inability to stop the mass consumption of meat is actually because speciesism makes it so we don’t care about the rights or lives of other animals, or is there another piece to the puzzle? Keegan argues that we care tremendously, “In theory [Keegan] can say that our resources should be concentrated on saving human lives, that our ‘Save the Whales’ T-Shirts should read

Peter Singer is one philosopher who attempts to answer this question. Singer being an advocate of animal equality argues that humans and animals are morally equal. He believes the unjust treatment of animals is derived from speciesism; describes the widespread discrimination

On the topic of animal rights, Vicki Hearne and Peter Singer represent opposite ends of a belief spectrum. Singer describes, in numerous articles, that he believes animal rights should focus on if the animal is suffering, and the best option to prevent it is to limit interaction between animals and humans. Specifically, in “Speciesism and Moral Status” Singer compares the intelligence and ability of non-human animals to those with severe cognitive disabilities to establish an outrageous solution to animal belittlement. He uses logos (the appeal to reason) and ethos (the appeal to ethics), to question the current rights in place to appeal to other scholars. Nevertheless, his approach can cause an emotional disconnect to the readers; this apparent in contrast to Hearne’s pathos (the

In this case, Singer is discussing nonhuman equality. Singer argues that if a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. He characterises this as ‘sentience’ the ability having the capacity to suffer or experience enjoyment or happiness. Human speciesists do not accept that pain is as bad when it is felt by animals as it is felt by humans, which is the argument for extending the principle of equality to nonhumans. When making a distinction between animals and humans Singer states that there are many areas in which the superior mental powers of normal adult humans make a difference: anticipation, more detailed memory, greater knowledge of what is happening and so on. These differences between humans and animals lead to the conclusion that normal adult human beings have mental capacities which will, in certain circumstances lead them to suffer more than animals would in the same circumstances. However, Singer proposes that if we use this argument to justify experiments on nonhuman animals then we have to ask ourselves whether we are also prepared to allow experiments on human infants and retarded adults as they too would have no idea of what was going to happen to them. In conclusion, Singer argues that the difference between humans and animals should not be considered when defining the moral standards of animal equality, as the

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.

In "All Animals Are Equal," Peter Singer argues that any being with sentience should be granted equal moral consideration on the basis of the concept of equality and the principle of equal consideration of interests. In this paper, I will reconstruct Singer's argument and explain the premises on how he came to this conclusion. To begin with, Singer defines sentience as the capacity to suffer or experience enjoyment or happiness (Singer 53). Singer states that "if a being is not capable of suffering, or of experiencing enjoyment or happiness, there is nothing to be taken into account... This is why the limit of sentience... is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interests of other" (Singer 50).

Peter Singer is an Australian philosopher born in 1946 and is known for his his views on animal rights and freedoms. He is a utilitarian which means that he believes that actions with the best moral consideration are the most beneficial to the well-being of others. In his essay, “All Animals are Equal”, Singer analyzes the idea of animal rights in today’s context, and discusses the issue of speciesism. Ultimately, Singer attempts to reach an answer to the philosophical question of whether animals should be considered people. [My argument I will make about his essay]

Following the principles of the virtue rule, that being, “you should act as a fully virtuous person, acting in character, would act in the circumstances,” we are challenged to see this argument in a different light. In the ethical dilemma that surrounds the culling of invasive animals the pain and suffering of those animals would need to be taken deeply into consideration. Singer explores this in Practical Ethics, Cambridge, 1979, chap. 3 when he stats, “If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering.(2)” In this quote Singer challenges the idea that we as self-aware humans have the right to selectively kill and therefore inflict pain on animals. Singer explains that all beings not just humans require their suffering to be “equally counted”. Following the teachings of Singer we need to consider the pain and suffering of the invasive species and weigh up if their suffering would lessen the suffering of the native species in the long run. Consequently, the same conclusion is found. Using Singer as a Virtuous figure and thus considering the overall

So therefore non-humans are equal to humans. These are points that he use in his argument of equal consideration. Singer describe speciesism as prejudice or bias in favor of the interests of members of its own species; this is his claim, he supports it by saying it can stop if we would stop eating meat and use other sources of protein instead. Another

He doesn’t think it matters if either a human or an animal feels them. However, he would agree with my statement of the decision whether to save my sister or my dog. He’ll say that there is a moral difference between saving the life of a human rather than an animal. In our textbook, it also explains that he would say a hunter does not have the moral equivalent to that of a murderer. Singer also has the belief that different species of animals have different levels of feeling pleasure and pain. Therefore, a dog would not feel the same pleasure or pain as a bear would. If you were to ask him, he’d also say that the pain or pleasure felt by an animal has the equal amount of morality as what a human would feel. It does not matter who feels it; it is all felt. On that note, he believes that humans have a greater capacity to feel pleasure and a greater capacity to feel pain. Singer’s views can be misinterpreted. He believes in animal rights, but he doesn’t agree that an animal life and a human life are equal. That is not necessarily what he’s saying. He thinks that they both are important, but a human can and has a greater capability to feel pain and pleasure. For animals, he doesn’t mean that they don’t feel. He believes that they are equal, given that all pleasure and all

Yet Singer fails to acknowledge the innate quality of speciesism. Singer is clear in his opinion that when measuring and comparing interests, the owner of the interests (and their species) is irrelevant. Only the specific interest should be considered. However, this ideal is impractical. The valuation of the interests of one’s own species over those of another’s is instinctual.

In "All Animals Are Equal," Peter Singer argues that any being with sentience should be granted equal moral consideration. In this paper, I will reconstruct Singer's argument and explain the premises on how he came to that conclusion. To begin with, Singer defines sentience as the capacity to suffer or experience enjoyment or happiness (Singer 53). Singer states that "if a being is not capable of suffering, or of experiencing enjoyment or happiness, there is nothing to be taken into account... This is why the limit of sentience... is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interests of other" (Singer 50).

The majority of the population would consider it up surd to entertainor even considersuch an idea of equal rights to animals. However, this is exactly the position Peter Singer, author of, “All Animals Are Equal” has taken. Singer holds the unpopular beliefofequalhappiness of humansand nonhumancreature of occupying the world.Singerbelieves that all animals, with no specificity of dumb animals or smart animals but all animalsshould be granted moral status, similar to that of thecounterpart, humans. Singer articulatesthis argument in an affirming way. He draws the conclusion, that nonhuman entitiesshould be given equal status and moral consideration as human entities is reached though hispresentation of premises that if an entity can shield,

Peter Singer's main topic is how we, as a race, treat the species that we co-exist with, expressing that animals be treated the same as humans. Singer proposes a liberation for animals as we have had for our races and sexuality. He sees animals