Peter Singer All Animals Are Equal

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.

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.

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.

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

I am going to argue in support of Peter Singer’s claims against speciesism. It is right to claim that human suffering and animal suffering should be given equal considerations. Both humans and nonhuman species suffer both physically and emotionally and both deserve equal considerations on the basis of morality.

Singer does not believe that animals should have rights but be worthy of equal consideration, which means animal’s interests should be equal to that of a moral agent and should not be overturned because of the moral agent’s interests. Singer states that being sentient is the minimum to have interests such as breathing, eating, and living which moral agents should take it as the like of any other interest. Also, he states that the relevancy should be that moral patients have interests and we should empathize with those than irrelevant things such as species, gender, race, etc. Singer states, “Experimenting on animals, and eating their flesh, are perhaps the two major forms of speciesism in our society” (176). The animals are not being considered of equal consideration which proves that moral agents are not valuing their worthy, hence speciesism.

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

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.

Most people can agree that everyone should be treated equally, no matter their race, gender, sexual orientation, and especially amount of intelligence. If this is assumed true, Singer proves that although humans have higher intelligence than animals, equality should be given to animals the same as us because intelligence does not matter. There are plenty of animals like chimpanzees, pigs, and elephants who are more intelligent than a human baby or someone with a learning disability, and yet more than one hundred and fifteen million pigs are slaughtered yearly in just the U.S. (Kolbert, 2009). According to Singer, an animal’s equality is not being met. Michael Pollan has a very different view than Singer on animal equality and the

In Stanley Benn’s “Egalitarianism and Equal Consideration of Interests”, it is explained that animals and human imbeciles are distinguished not because of fundamental inequality, but solely on the basis that the two subjects are of different species. In regard to animals’ moral rights and the infringement of those rights due to the practice of speciesism, Singer employs a utilitarian style of argument to defend animals’ moral rights; in short, the interests of each being which is involved should be taken into consideration and said interests should be given the same weight as that of another being. Speciesism is morally wrong because it attempts to assign undeserved weight to the interests of beings of separate species, solely based off the difference of species. Naturally, or rather unnaturally, human beings have always awarded themselves the utmost importance due to the idea of human dignity, as in humans occupy the central spot within any earthly ranking. Logically, Singer argues that the practice of speciesism is wrong because the conditions in which it exists are synonymous to the conditions which facilitate racism and sexism, before they had been recognized as

In his article “All Animals Are Equal”, Singer discusses his basic principle of equality which is the equality of consideration, and he believes that it should be extended to all sentient beings. With that in mind, he sheds the light on three points that I’ll argue against. Singer’s first point is that the ability to suffer is what gives something or someone a moral value. The second point he gives is that humans are subordinating the animal interests to their taste preferences. As for the third point, he states that a baby or a retarded human could be used for experiments rather than animals.

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

We all heard countless solutions on how to solve world poverty. In Peter Singer’s article “Rich and Poor”, he discusses how he thinks this problem can be fixed. Singer claims that we all have a responsibility to support people who are in extreme need and are suffering from absolute poverty. Singer believes that poverty could be fixed if people give up their luxuries and give the money that they spent on unnecessary things to those who are destitute. In Singer 's mind, we all have a duty to give until we are no longer able to, or until the problem with the world poverty will be solved. Singer feels that it is necessary for people who are more wealthy to help those who are less fortunate by donating money right away to organizations that help fight poverty. In his opinion, by not helping those in need we are negatively responsible for their suffering and thus failing to live a moral life.

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

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).