Animal Liberation By Peter Singer: Article Analysis

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.

A highly popularized and debated topic in our modern society is the promotion of animal equality or animal rights. Many people, philosophers included, have a wide range of opinions on this topic. Two of the philosophers studied in class who discussed animal rights were Peter Singer and Carl Cohen. Singer, who has the more extreme view on animal rights, believes that all animals are equal and that the limit of sentience is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interest of others (Singer, 171). While Cohen, who’s view is more moderate than that of Singer’s, believes that animals do not have rights, stating that to have rights one must contain the ability for free moral judgment. Though, he does believe that we as

The question of the correct ethical treatment of animals has been a topic of many heated debates. The basis of this discussion arises numerous premises that justifies the treatment of animals. Whether animal do in fact have a sentient? And what is distinctive about humanity such that humans are thought to have moral status and non-human do not? Providing an answer to the correct ethical treatment of animals has become increasingly paramount among society as well as philosophers.

Over the past few decades, the impact of human behavior has had a profound effect on the rest of the world. In David Suzuki’s “The Pain of Animals”, he explores how he came to understand the results of human actions on other living creatures. Reflecting on his work in genetics, as well as personal experiences, David argues that humans act as though they are born with an inherent right to “exploit other living organisms as we see fit” (Suzuki, 1989). He does this by exploring the emotional toll humans have on animals and illustrates the effects of their use in research. I believe that animals are born with an inherent right to life and should be treated with value and respect. On the other hand, without the study of genes and biomedical research, healthcare would not have the medical advancements that it has today. Previous laws on the use of animals in research were insufficient in how researchers ought to treat their test subjects; they merely forbade cruel, deliberate harm from being inflicted (Gilbert & Kaebnick & Murray, 2012). With increased ethical policies set in place, and enforced, animal testing can continue as a beneficial tool in the advancement of healthcare.

Peter Singer is one of Harriet 's professors at her college, whom treats her very respectfully, except for the fact that he fully believes in terminating the life of anyone diabled as if they were not human. However he is an animal rights activist, making him seem like quite somewhat of a hypocrate. Dispite his immoral opinion he makes an understandable arguement, that I feel leans to somewhat of survival of the fittest.

Singer argues that the uncomplicated matter that animals have the capability to experience discomfort and joy puts them on an equal moral footing with human beings. Singer also condemns "speciesism," a concept like racism in which humans consider that they are authorized to use other creatures simply because they are members of a different species just in the way humans have exploited one another on the basis of race or gender or other perceived differences. Animals from factory farms have no legal protection from cruelty that. If the same acts were inflicted on dogs or cats it would be illegal. This only proves the discrimination there is when it comes to animal rights. Species are not considered to have equal values. Humans appreciate animals

Imagine having no rights, being treated crudely everyday, and constantly being in pain. That is how animals that live their lives in labs feel every single day. Many animals die from being tested on, “Animals killed each year worldwide for experiments and drug research range from 50 to 100 million.” (Source A). There are organizations like PETA (People or the Ethical Treatment of Animals) that are trying to stop speciesism and get natural rights for animals. Speciesism is “the habit of attributing greater moral significance to the well-being of animals.” (Source C). Animals have the ability to think and feel just as humans do. This only makes it right for animals to possess rights like humans. Humans should not hold themselves higher than any other species, “humans are inherently no better than or different from other animals, and should have no right to hold our own interests above the interests of other species.”

Now more recently than ever, we’ve begun to use and abuse nature without giving back. Humans possess zoos, farms, and labs where they confine and control nature. Labs for one, are brutal and malicious places where we force animals into painful tests just to sometimes benefit ourselves.

Experimentation on animals has been a controversial issue for hundreds of years and is still a major issue today. However, we have continued to experiment on animals to test the effects of products such as makeup. Both Peter Singer and Tom Regan would have strong opinions against this experimentation, but they would also have different ways of expressing their view on the topic. They have expressed that animals should be considered to a certain extent that humans and other animals should be treated with some form of equality. While Peter Singer and Tom Regan would have similar goals in this situation, there are many parts of their arguments against animal experimentation that are different. The following will explain how both Peter

According to Singer, we should extend the basic principle of equality to other species, instead of perceiving them as things at our disposal to satisfy our needs and interests. The author points out that we cannot defend our use of animals, considering that we can survive without meat, and eat directly products with which we feed them. Also, it is increasingly popular among consumers the dissent for the way in which the mass production treats animals by reducing the issue to a better treatment while they wait to be killed and taken to our tables. Furthermore, Singer resorts to a famous objection of Benjamin Franklin, who was vegetarian for a while and to justify his desire to eat fish said to himself, “Well, if you eat one another, I don’t

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,

Why is it that we as a society condemn the actions of a man against a man but very rarely a man against an animal? I think this question must be understood if we are ever to change the rights animals have. As of yet I don't believe animals have any actual rights. Rather humans have rights that involve animals. If we are to truly allow animals to have rights the same or similar to humans then we must first define what it is that makes us feel as if they are entitled to rights.

Humans have always had a complicated relationship with non-human animals. This relationship has always benefitted the needs of humans, with little consideration for animals’ needs. Some animals are tortured for entertainment, some are butchered for food and others are taken from their habitat and family, and forced to be pets for humans. These are all examples of the ways humans have exploited animals for their own satisfaction. Hal Herzog’s essay “Animals Like Us” describes the complicated relationship that humans and animals have, and how difficult it is to determine what is ethical when dealing with animals. Jonathan Safran Foer makes a similar observation in his essay “The Fruits of Family Trees” of the ethical issues in the

“The UN along with other agencies reported that not only did livestock play a major role in global warming, it is also the leading cause of resource consumption and environmental degradation destroying the planet today.” (Andersen & Kuhn, 2014). It is important, then, to consider the effects of animal agriculture on the environment. This essay will argue that animal agriculture is harmful to the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, water- and land use, and that policies in the form of subsidizing plant foods, altering the Canada Food Guide, and creating plant based nutrition coaching and support groups should be enacted to solve these problems. The first section of this paper will outline scholarly literature on the effects of animal agriculture on the environment. This paper will then discuss why a plant based diet is also suitable for optimal health. Finally, this essay will conclude with an overview of the various social policies that must be executed to solve these environmental issues.

Humanity is known as the most selfish species on this planet. We seem to think that everything serves for our benefit. Truth is, we share this planet with all the other species. They do not serve us nor do they think they are the dominant species. We have killed many species into extinction. Some for fun, some for money and some just because. Animals are very reserved and just like to do their own thing. They mind their business and don’t try to pry into other’s business. Now I’m not saying that exploring is a bad thing. But what I want to get across is that we shouldn’t have to cut open and test these poor creatures that have done nothing but mind their business and keeps the cycle going. We use all kinds of animals to test out everything that we want to use. But why don’t we test it on other human beings for better results? Oh right. Because it’s inhumane. Many animals are born just to be tested on from the get go. Imagine living your whole life getting jabbed on a daily basis with some new formula that can cause deformations to your body, have a severe allergic reaction to, and that might or might not kill you. Imagine not knowing if you’ll still be living the next day. These animals might possibly be thinking all of this and we don’t even know it.