Animal Rights Vs Peter Singer

Finally, An Animals Place uses inspiration from Peter Singer’s opinions on animal rights and speciesism to create a global view for it’s readers. The two agree on many fundamental concepts that animals and humans should be valued as equals and how as humans we possess the power over

The first point of utilitarianism is important for readers to understand because upon completion of reading this work, or any work related to animals deserving equal considerations in terms of suffering, comes a question of ethics and a decision. Singer expresses the similarities between how humans treated one another and their progressions over time throughout Animal Liberation with good reasons. The

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

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

The article “A Change of Heart About Animals” written by Jeremy Rifkin informs readers that animals feel emotions very much similar to humans and should be given more rights. I agree with Rifkin’s statement, but to a certain extent.

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

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

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.

In the book, Miss Lonelyhearts, written by Nathanael West, human suffering displayed in many ways. Miss Lonelyhearts, the protagonist in the book, has a job that requires him to help people who are suffering, however, he is not good at his as he said he is. He is not able to succeed in discovering the reason for said suffering from help others. Human suffering showed a lot through the book and Miss Lonelyhearts wasn’t able to find the true meaning of suffering when human suffering presented when he was working at the newspaper reading letters from suffering people, then meeting the misery couple, Mr. and Mrs. Doyle, and lastly himself suffering from Shrike always breathing down his neck. It was clearly shown,

He adds that an object that cannot suffer or have any feeling whatsoever, is not included. This may mean that an object that is not living cannot be compared to an animal. In addition, Singer recognizes that it is better for scientists to experiment on animals than on humans. He says, “Normal adult human beings have mental capacities that will, in certain circumstances, lead them to suffer more than animals would in the same circumstances” (Singer, 59). This is because humans get a dreading feeling because they know what is going to happen to them. Animals do not feel the anticipation, because they do not have the same mental capacity that an adult human has. Basically, he is saying that humans suffer more because we have a better memory which causes us to remember things we have heard of or experienced, and because we have better knowledge of what will happen. However, he insists that this does not make the killing of an animal right (Singer, 59).

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).

Peter Singer argues, in regard to animal rights, that equal beings with equal interests should be considered equally. Singer makes three claims about equality to support his position; equality is based on equal consideration, speciesism is unjustified, and the ability to feel pain makes one worthy of moral consideration. He believes equal interests deserve equal treatment, and guidelines for having interests concern sentience; the ability to experience suffering. Comparing to the ideas of Mill, both are utilitarians and have a similar ideology around interests and moral consideration around the treatment of animals. Singer’s position on not eating meat is based on the utilitarian principle that ethical

It is for this reason that Singer’s approach differs from Regan’s. Regan argued that humans and nonhuman animals are ‘subjects of a life’ and as a result of this, it is the ‘inherent value of animals that matters’. Advocating a ‘respect principle’ where rights are conferred to all who possess consciousness, namely ‘mammals aged one year or more’ on the basis that they have inherent value deserving of respect. Although similar to Kant, Regan argues that there is no way to differentiate between humans and nonhuman animals without resorting to speciesism and to do so violates the respect principle as it facilitates the trading of animal rights in certain circumstances. Both Singer and Regan reject Kantian assertions that humans are special as they can fulfil what he termed ‘categorical imperative’, which is to only do what can be universalised, arguing that rationality, autonomy and the ability for verbal communication is not a justification for the maltreatment of animals. To

Even more so, Singer seems to be concerned about his readers not portraying him (or any other of us standing for the nonhumans’ interests) merely as emotional “animal-lovers” (1990: iii). As Singer specifies, his work makes no sentimental appeals for sympathy toward “cute” animals, but aims to expand people’s moral horizons and to inspire the liberation movement as a demand for an end to prejudice and discrimination (1990:

During the class discussion on Singer’s, “All animals are equal” made me very interested in Singer’s arguments. There were many topics which I agree with him, like the suffering of all beings deserving of equal consideration. Most people are speciesist and speciesism is morally wrong. However, I nonetheless find myself from time to time conflict with him. One of the argument he claimed that the anguish of a creature does not merit measure up to view as the agony of a human. But, all the animals have interest, which means they avoid pain and suffer. Also, every living thing wants to live in this world with prosperity and no one has right to take away their rights from them. That is why I strongly believe that the suffering of animals is equal in regard to the suffering of humans because every living thing wants to live and they have the right to live.