Animal Equality In Peter Singer's All Animals Are Equal

Article 4: Duty and the Beast: animal experimentation and neglected interests, D Benatar. (2000) In this article, Benatar brings to the forefront the argument that experimentation on animals should be a great concern because of the suffering and loss of life in spite of the regulations and restrictions that are supposed to guide the practice. Benatar goes as far to claim that animal testing is uncharitable, and does not support

The argument for animal rights is an ever growing debate in modern society, with increasing amounts of people taking measures to protect the rights of all animals. This push for animal rights is a relatively new development, with Peter Singer acting as one of the lead advocates for this movement. Singer was one of the first philosophers to argue strongly for the equality amongst all creatures. His highly important article, “All Animals are Equal,” was published in 1974 sparking conversation over this issue. Singer is a believer in Utilitarianism, a moral code which was greatly influenced by the nineteenth century philosopher, John Stuart Mill. While Singer’s viewpoint follows much of Mill’s brand of utilitarianism, I will identify an important difference in each philosopher’s beliefs regarding “happiness” and how this leads to different application of the Greatest Happiness Principle.

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

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.

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

People are constantly trying to justify the immoral treatment of animals. As humans we have an inherent tendency to give preference to our own species over others without any moral relevant differences, a concept more formally known as speciesism. In the piece of writing titled Animal Liberation by Peter Singer he talks about this concept, giving arguments and counter arguments in the name of animal rights. Singer starts off with the powerful and effective analogy connecting the arguments used to fight for equality of sexes and races to the arguments that are applicable to the fundamental rights of animals. This comparison is brought up continuously and although it's acknowledged that there’s a significant difference between people who are racist or sexist to those who can be considered speciesist, the analogy is still helpful in dismissing certain arguments, for instance, just because we are capable of oppressing animals doesn't mean that we should. Also just thinking because it's how things have always been done and because it would be difficult and drastically impactful to society aren't reasons enough not to change. In the writing Singer incorporates a very good quote from a black Feminist named Sojourner Truth who once said in reference to oppression on the bases of intellect, “If my cup won't hold but a pint and yours holds a quart, wouldn't you be mean not to let me have my little half measure full?”. During that time in American history many believed that blacks and

Hello Felicia, you rightly point out that you have mixed feelings on the issue under discussion. That is what the elaborateness of Singer’s argument does to whoever reads it. It covers almost every angle one would want to take to refute of support existing views about animal treatment. However, with that said, I wish to raise some questions based on your post. For starters, you argue that you do not care about animals being treated cruelly and use bull fighting as an example. What would be your position on clubbing baby seals and leaving them to rot out there as is the case in Canada? On the same token, you have indicated that you have pets, which I believe you care for deeply. What would be your feelings towards a culture that consumes any

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.

“Nearly as many, 68 percent, were concerned or very concerned about the well-being of animals used in ‘sports’ or contests as well as animals in laboratories (67 percent) (Kretzer, 1).” Many people question whether an animal is capable of thought and emotions. Others feel as though animals are the equivalent of humans and should be treated as such. Since the 1800’s, animal rights has been a topic that has several different sides including two extremes. If animals can react to their environment, emote, and are aware of things done to or with them, then they should have similar rights to humans.

In Peter Singer’s article “All Animals are Equal,” Singer advocates for the basic principle of equality to be extended to animals. By the basic principle of equality, he means that all beings should receive equal consideration in relation to experiencing pain and pleasure.

If the destruction of the planet we live on is not enough, the fact that we are killing the very things we need to survive is. In addition to creating climate change, we have violated animals with the creation of factory farming to feed the unsustainable overpopulation of our planet. Peter Singer in his work titled “Animal Liberation” discusses the abhorrent way humans treat animals and the considerations of feeling pain. He goes on to discuss the idea of speciesism which is “the belief that we are entitled to treat members of other species in a way in which it would be wrong to threat members of our own species” (Singer). Both of these sources make a compelling case for why humans should treat plants animals and other natural entities with the same respect we treat ourselves with. Indeed, Singer points out that “[j]ust as we can understand infant human behavior in the light of adult human behavior; so we can understand the behavior of other species in the light of our own behavior” (Singer). It is a conscious choice we make to that other species are less than us. He detailed the horrific treatment of animals used for testing including a cat the received an injection in the brain and died a painful death thirty

Inequality of animals Peter singer argues in “Speciesism and the Equality of Animals” that speciesism is a term of inequality and discrimination regards, the appeal of ones own species against other species. Singers asserts objections to racism and sexism claiming intelligence does not qualify one human to use another for its own means.(para 1),highly considering other species as equal. Singer highlights many philosophers and other writer have put forward the principle of equality and how all beings regardless it an animal or a human being should have equal interests. Jerememy Bentan understood it the most.(para2) Bentam points out the need to suffer and feel enjoyment for one to express interests.

In Peter Singer’s article All Animals Are Equal (Winston 29-36), Singer talks about the point of view Jeremy Bentham had on the capacity to suffer, going into Bentham’s idea on what humans would do with non-human animals in order to satisfy our taste for their flesh. That in order to have meat products on the table at an affordable price to the population of that area, we must treat non-human animals like machines, enclosing them in unsuitable conditions for their entire life (p. 33).

In the last section our class we have discussed the question of what has value. We read many articles written from various points of view on what has value and moral rights and why they have value. This tension between what has rights and what does not is often played out between humans and non-human organisms. Many philosophers and people, including myself, believe that animals have value and moral rights. Yet, there are still many who believe it is silly to think that animals have rights like humans do. Philosopher Peter Singer, author of the article “All Animals Are Equal” describes this conflict of views as an opportunity for people to expand their moral horizons. He notes in his paper how the civil rights movement is somewhat

Peter Singer’s argument for determining when animal experiments are justified is stated in his papers “All Animals are Equal” and “Tools for Research”. His argument in regards to animal experimentation and speciesism is very thought provoking and makes the readers review their own biases regarding human/animal relations. Although some of the ideas the author brings forward, such as using mentally retarded or orphaned babies for experimentation, are radical, they do make one think about the biases we have as a species. Also, his thoughts on mammals and birds ability to feel pain being