Animal Adittion By Peter Singer: Article Analysis

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

Imagine you are having dinner with your family, at your favorite restaurant. You exchange stories about your day along with smiles and laughter. Now imagine suddenly being knocked out, and the next thing you know, you are taken away from your family, confined in a cage in captivity. You notice instruments near you and realize it's for experimentation. You cry out in protest, but they continue anyway. This is the life of many animals who are vulnerable and can’t defend themselves against neglect and abuse. Therefore it is our moral responsibility to protect animals. Animals should have certain rights to protect them from being treated inhumanely. Animals are similar to humans and shouldn’t be experimented on, held in captivity or have their natural habitats destroyed.

In discussion of inhumane treatment, a controversial issue is whether animals are entitled to their rights. While some argue that only humans have rights, others contend that animals should have the same privileges as humans. The author of “A Change of Heart about Animals,” Jeremy Rifkin, claims that animals should have better treatment. Rifkin rhetorically changes one’s view on this subject without the consent of the reader. Rifkin begins by showing the animals’ human qualities, then giving a counter statement to common objections, and finally ends it by utilizing negative language.

However, if the animals were treated well and were killed painlessly, that would not be morally wrong because, in this case, eating meat is only wrong when the animals are not treated as well as they could be. Singer believes that every sentient being should receive equal consideration, but he is aware that humans and non-human animals do not deserve the same rights because different beings have different interests (Singer 149). An example Singer gives is that it would not be wrong to deny dogs the right to vote because dogs are incapable of understanding the significance of voting, so they cannot have the right to vote, but it would be wrong to deny a dog’s interest in not suffering since dogs have a strong interest in avoiding pain (Singer 149).

More than three decades ago Peter Singer heralded the need for a new kind of liberation movement, one calling for a radical expansion of the human moral canvas and more importantly, a rejection of the horrors human beings have inflicted for millennia upon other sentient beings, treatment historically considered as being both natural and unalterable. Often regarded as being the father of the modern animal liberation movement, Singer contends that the campaign for animal

We can all come together and bring an end to the growing rate of animal cruelty. A brighter future for the earth’s ecosystem and human society, where more animals are happy and free. This can also prevent animals from going extinct. Although it won’t bring an end to it right away, we can at least begin to make it come to an end. We can have more people feel even more humane about life, knowing that animal cruelty is being fought and removed from existence. It will bring people to justice for what they did to the animals. This will be a revolutionary idea for a better and new future for our kids in the

animals cruelty, discrimination, and animals equal rights. Singer uses philosophy to teach and educate others on his point of view. Singer points out that animals have rights too and supports animals just like he does with Black Liberation, Gay Liberation, and Women Liberation. Singer states, “It is a demand for a complete change in our attitudes to nonhumans. It is a demand that we cease to regard the exploitation of other species as natural and inevitable, and that, instead, we see it as a continuing moral outrage.” (pg.208) He supports the equal treatment of animals just like women did in changing societies views of work place and labor.

Peter Singer approaches the topic of animal rights with a utilitarian approach. He openly admits that animals’ rights are being taken advantage of when the interests of humans supersede to rights of animals. This often occurs when dealing with the topic of animals for food. As humans, we domesticated various animals and essentially use them to nourish ourselves. Following

Over the centuries, animals have suffered from cruelty from humans. In the United States, animals are beaten, neglected, or forced to struggle for survival. Animals have been inflicted with pain from humans for reasons other than self-defense. They have been slaughtered for their food and fur for personal gain in profit. In a majority of cases they have even been abused for someone’s own personal amusement or out of rage filled impulses. In some cases animals are found and rescued. They are given the second chance in life to experience what life should be like compared to what they once had.

Animals are a big part of many people’s lives. They provide companionship; they provide daily assistance to those that have deficits and are having difficulty functioning in their daily life; they provide security and help keep a watchful eye on things, plus so much more. And yet, with all that animals do for us, there are those that are treated with such little regard, care, and cruelty. They are unable to speak for themselves and therefore, they need a voice to speak for them.

In Peter Singer’s piece “All Animals Are Equal”, he begins his argument by an in-depth consideration of notable rights movements, such as the Black Liberation and women’s rights movement, then segues into the justification for equal consideration of rights regarding animals, before finally exposing the immorality behind factory farming and animal cruelty. According to Singer, “the basic principle of equality…is equality of consideration; and equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights” (Singer 1974, 506). Based off proposed animals’ rights to equal consideration, Singer formats his main arguments against factory farming and the mistreatment of animals in general. These arguments stem from

Is the killing of animals wrong? This is an issue that is currently being argued. In the world there are people who kill animals to eat them while there are others that feel that it is inhumane to kill defenseless animals. There are many factors over which animals are killed. For example, animals that are suffering due to an illness, animals that have shown to be dangerous around us, for food, and to maintain the animal’s population balanced. Some people have argued that killing animals for food is not the only way to feed ourselves, since we produce vegetation. These people think that animals should have the same rights as humans. People feel this way because they feel that animals feel everything that we feel, such as pain, loss,

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.

In our world, protests occur each day on the issues of animal cruelty and human rights, but when the issues are put together which will reign over the other? The author Peter Singer of “All Animals are Equal” and “Tools for Research” presents his argument for determining when animal experiments are justified. The author starts his paper with a counter argument, questioning if one would be willing to let thousands of people die if those people could be saved by experimentation on a single animal. The answer is a unanimous no; in our culture we value human life over everything else. The author follows by asking the reader if they would be prepared to carry out their experiments on humans who are mentally retarded or orphaned babies, if that

― Jeremy Bentham, The Principles of Morals and Legislation. As a society we have come to see animal cruelty as a heinous crime, and that’s great progress. However, not everyone is following the notion. Animal cruelty is still very prevalent, and sadly its abhorrent results are often neglected and overlooked. Although it isn’t always to the same extent of atrocious consequences every single time, animal cruelty contains numerous and detrimental effects on society and humanity, because any abuse or cruel acts of violence has an effect on humanity and the world as a whole.