Animal Rights And Utilitarianism

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.

Peter Singer’s argument is that all animals are equal and should be treated as such. He begins to build his argument by defining “equality”. Equality entails “equal consideration” for a being’s interests, with the potential for different treatment. Consider the difference in treatment between men and women in regards to abortion rights. Women have the right to get an abortion while men do not. This is not a difference in equality, but simply recognition of the fact that it could be in the interest of women to get one. Men on the other hand, have no desire or ability for this right. Singer

Peter Singer has written many works in support of animal rights. In one of his greatest works Animal Liberation, Singer goes into great depths on how similar in biology animals are to human beings. Another strong point was not only the biological resemblance, but also the behavioral tendencies and traits humans and nonhuman species share. There are two major areas of focus that Singer puts emphasis on that need to be recognized for the purposes of my argument. One focus is this utilitarian approach that only the human species carry: the belief of ethical and morally good behavior should be extended to the consideration of nonhuman species. The second focus that is the basis for my argument is Singer’s argument against a huge human social construct labeled speciesism.

Peter Singer is defined by being the most positive influencer of all living philosopher in the world. An Australian moral philosopher, environmentalist and animal activist, most noted for his work of Animal Liberation that was published in 1975, a canonical text in animal rights/liberation theory (Singer, 2002). Singer is often found arguing the wrongfulness of what human society performs to millions of suffering animals. A vigorous activist who specializes in applied ethics and ethical issues (Singer, 2002). He firmly believes that as humans we should become just like him and think and feel the way he does. Following his way of life, we could become vegetarians and not perform any wrongfulness to animals that do not deserve to be eaten

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

To start with, The term Animal Rights did not emerge until the late 1970 's, according to Encyclopedia Britannica. In Particular, Richard Ryder, a British Psychologist, expressed his boldest ideas, but in order to get his word out around the world he needed assistance from one of the top Australian philosophers, Peter Singer. Singer published numerous of notable books such as " Animal liberation " which described in vivid detail, the grueling agony animals had to suffer. In fact, Pete Singer got his inspiration for his book " Animal liberation " from his view on utilitarianism, the belief that a morally good action is one that helps the greatest number of people and animals. Indeed, the phrase Animal Rights first surfaced in the 1970

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

Nevertheless, I do not mean that our moral obligations to them are identical to our moral obligations to other human beings – the view that Regan, many vegans, as well as those who are against speciesism. In his essay “The Moral Basis of Vegetarianism,” Regan argues that non-human animals deserve equal consideration and treatment, because they are, in many ways, similar to humans. Most of us nowadays would agree that non-human animals are not what Descartes called “automata,” that “have no mind and are unable to think;” they surely can feel pain and pleasure just like we do, and this has become a common knowledge (Regan, 4). However, as far as I am concerned, that non-human animals have sensations is in no way suggesting that our moral obligations to other humans need to be applied to non-human animals as well, regardless of the fact that we do have moral obligations to them. In other words, we are not entitled to treat them precisely the same way we treat other humans, because no matter how many similarities we share with them, they are still not humans; they do not and cannot reason rationally and make free choices like we do – at least we think they cannot. As a result, we are not obliged to treat them the way we treat other humans, when the concept of rights does not apply in their worlds, and they cannot act or think the way other humans

Peter Singer is a utilitarian, so his belief is that humans should do what maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain. He believes that eating meat is speciesist because it sacrifices the major interests of non-human animals (to not die) for the minor interests of humans (to enjoy the taste of meat). Singer claims that any being that has the capacity for suffering should be given the right to equal consideration, and so people should stop eating meat because animals have an interest in avoiding suffering. He claims that we should avoid killing animals for food except when it is necessary for survival.

To start off his argument, Singer wants to formulate that the most important moral distinction of any human/non-human is if any of them can suffer. If the human/non-human can suffer, then the human/non-human

Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this

Singer starts the article by challenging the reader's idea of the last form of discrimination; too many the last form of discrimination was sex-based but to Singer that is not the case. He believes people false consciously accept sexism as the last form of discrimination because there are no other groups of women that have advocated for rights, but people fail to realize oppression and discrimination go unnoticed until the group being mistreated points out the mistreatment. People look past the mistreatment of animals because animals cannot advocate for their rights. He refers to the discrimination against animals as speciesism; speciesism is the innate superiority of a species (homo sapiens) to another species without a solid foundation other than self-interest. Just like a racist places the self-interest of members of their own race superior to members of another race, a speciesist places the self-interest of members of their own species superior to another species. He continues by saying people are often confused when talking about animal rights; are we supposed to give animals the right to vote? He explains this concern by bringing up a woman’s right to an abortion. Woman have the right to an abortion

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

Throughout history morality has been a topic of intense debate. Innumerable thinkers have devoted immense amounts of time and energy to the formulation of various ethical theories intended to assist humans in their daily lives. These theories set out guidelines which help to determine the rightness or wrongness of any given action and can therefore illuminate which choice would be morally beneficial. And while many of these theories differ substantially, most have at least one common underlying principle, namely that humans deserve to be treated with a certain level of respect. This idea comes from the belief that all humans have interests which are significant enough to be considered, hence no one should impede another

Where I do not disagree with the basis of Singer’s argument, I do disagree with some of the minor facts used to support this argument. I disagree with the notion that the human race is ready to do anything to another species in order to satisfy our taste, that non-human animals are seen like machines and they are kept in unsuitable conditions. In general, Singer’s argument seems to be based on vague points and generalizes the human population.