Cecil The Lion Peter Singer Analysis

Millions of animals every year are being used in labs to test cosmetics. This problem has become a worldwide issue and the U.S. needs to make a change by prohibiting the use of animals in testing cosmetics for safe use.

The idea that all humans are born equal has been something that has been almost installed in our minds. However, in the eyes of Peter Singer, we as humans are constantly violating our own moral code in the way we treat animals. Singer refers to this as speciesism and compares our treatment of animals to the same way sexists and racists treat those who they deem inferior. He also argues that the grounds on which they base their prejudice on are equally fragile. He illustrates this by comparing speciesists to racists. He recalls, “The racists violates the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of his own race…similarly the speciesist allows the interests of his own species to override the greater interests of members of another species” (53.) He initiates this argument by explaining how our willingness to declare all humans as equal when the opposite is fundamentally true. Singer writes, “Like it or not, we must face the fact that humans come in different shapes and sizes; they come with differing moral capacities, differing intellect…if the demand for equality was based on the actual equality of all human beings, we would have to stop demanding equality” (51). Singer seeks to establish that our push for equality ends once the being in question is no longer human. Once he establishes this, he can quickly draw parallels between our unequal treatment of animals and humans. He evolves what initially begins as a far-fetched claim to a nuanced and

Peter Singer’s article, titled “All Animals Are Equal,” takes an approach on the long standing debate of human versus animal equality. His stance is strong and clear. Humans must not experiment on nonhuman animals (hereinafter referred to as ‘animals’) because they should be treated as equals: “equal, that is, to each other and to humans” (Singer 112). Singer appears to be both ignorant and mistaken in his discussion of animal rights. Instead of focusing on the positives that come from animal experimentation, he instead focuses solely on the ethics behind it. Though this ethical debate is not new, and many have concluded that it is, in sorts, a necessary evil, Singer still attempts to persuade the reader. His arguments are unsound, and his reasoning far-fetched, as Carl Cohen argues in his article, “The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research.” One of Singer’s specific arguments is that speciesism and racism can be compared to one another because they are equal in their discriminatory actions. This is not only untrue, but it also diminishes the struggles of suffering from racist acts by further encouraging the thought that black people are not equals to anyone but animals.

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’s Animal Liberation brings forth topics of animal cruelty and equality. Singer argues that humans have a natural tendency towards speciesism; speciesism “is a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s species against those of members of other species” (Singer, 6). Speciesism is used by Singer to determine a catalyst for the never-ending cycle that is animal cruelty and abuse on a broader stage. Singer essentially argues that just like racism where one has prejudice or an attitude of bias in favor of one’s race as opposed to others and sexism where sexes replace races, species replaces sexes and races. Equality in Singer’s perspective is that every individual should have the opportunity of equal

Both “Raising Voices for Cecil the Lion” by National Public Radio author Barbara J. King and William Golding’s Lord of the Flies have an underlying theme of how society works and comes together to deal with a threat or problem. They both show that people do tend to unite on sides of an issue.

This is an upsetting topic but everyone should be aware of animals being used when purchasing a product. Some products say – no animal testing involved in its development. Product testing is commonly performed on animals in order to measure the effects of the substances used in the making of cosmetics. In performing these tests, substances are placed in the eyes of conscious rabbits to assess damage to sensitive eye tissues. This is very painful for the rabbits, who often scream when the substances are applied and sometimes break their necks or backs trying to escape the restraints.

This was something I found very interesting especially considering the way we have treated animals throughout history. I remember on childhood trips to the zoo thinking how strange it was for us to making a spectacle out of a living creature. I also grew up on a far which gave me an odd insight into the “human” qualities of the animals around me. My sisters and I frequently rode horses and cared for lambs or calves who had been rejected by their mothers. Recently, I’ve come to the opinion that the way we treat the other inhabitants of this planet will be one of those things we look back on in hundreds of years with

The US Food and Drug Administration endorses the use of animal tests on cosmetics to ensure the safety of the product and ingredients. Mosquito repellant which helps protect people from Malaria and other dangerous illnesses, must undergo toxicological tests in order to be sold in the United States. (procom.org) It has been estimated that millions of animals per year are used to test the safety of household cleaners, pesticides, industrial chemicals, food additives, packing materials, drugs and vaccines for both people and animals, and even the food eaten by other animals. The use of animals to test cosmetics and other care products has declined in recent years, a wide array of non-animal skin and eye irritation tests have been developed to determine the effects of short term exposure to new ingredients. The pressure from the public has played a major role in these alternatives.

For the purpose of this discussion, I will discuss speciesism, and how it pertains to nonhuman animals. According to Peter Singer, speciesism is being prejudice or bias towards the interest of one’s own species over the interest of other species; therefore, not taking in consideration the different interests or capacities of anther species. As a utilitarian, Peter Singer believes in the maximum amount of happiness/interest of sentient beings. It would be immoral to treat nonhuman animals differently because we hold our pain and suffering above theirs due to the fact they are not human.

Animals should be used in testing to make cosmetic products because it protects the safety of people and the environment. The Animal Research Corporation claimed that animals “Can act as models for the study of human illness” (1). The evidence being stated is showing that this animal corporation has leading evidence that animals are a big help to humans by knowing the fact that researchers are not testing on actual people, to determine a treatment on animals without harming humans. This also gives the scientists a chance to observe if the product they use on animals will have their immune systems respond to and how it can possibly affect humans. All of the calculations and results depend on scientists experiments in their labs. Although animals may die if the product or get really sick from what scientists use, atleast they know that they have proof as to if the product works or not. Life and death of animals that are being used to make consumer products is being used for good purposes that help human’s population. Researchers are using animals instead of humans to keep humans safe and secure. If the experiment that researchers try to study on animals does not work, they will know not to use and approve the consumer

Cosmetic testing is possibly the most trivial excuse for animal testing, animals are restrained in order to pour products into their eyes, often permanently damaging them. Products are applied to the animal's’ skin to test its hypoallergenic properties or acidity. And experimental BOTOX injections are administered, which can even leave animals with permanent paralysis of the muscle it is injected into.

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

Animal rights are an important topic to discuss and review. The trouble is the vast diversity of how people see humans and animals and how they are different and yet the same. Animals are in every aspect of our lives in how they are utilized to make our lives easier, to sustain us, or as a pet. Unfortunately, the line of animals and humans blurs as the widely known belief that we are a derivation of an animal and we should treat them as we would ourselves. This viewpoint, however, can be taken to an extreme as we see pets that can be pampered quite a bit. Relating back to the four authors in our text, there is considerable controversy on how animals should be treated. While some interesting positions arise with the various authors, to