Peter Singer Equality

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

In the article “A Change of Heart About Animals”, Rifkin asserts that humans are treating animals in the most atrocious way, and he claims that in order for their lives to improve, we need to definitely adjust ours. He uses great amount of logos, and several experiments done with different animals and tries his best to closely relate animals to us, humans. Rifkin although, never inserts a call for action to this problem throughout his article. Instead, he puts the emphasis on the pathos of the argument. In the world we are living in today, there is about 8.7 million different living species. Whether they are land or marine animals, they do play a big role in our community such as being apart of the food pyramid, assisting handicapped people wherever they go, or being a transportation for people living on farms and fields. With this being said, the ranking of animals in our community has brought up a heated argument in connection to their rights and welfare. Eight legged, four legged, or two legged land or sea animals do not comprehend the concept of rights. If we, humans, give animals “rights”, we are basically inferring the fact that we are like animals, and they have the entitlement to share our rights. Although they don’t understand rights, the fact that many of these animals are being treated inhumanely is wrong and animal welfare should be ingrained into this community rather than the massive inhumane treatment.

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.

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

Singer’s principle of equality is the equal, impartial consideration of all like interests (Singer, p. 20). It is a non-factual principle that presents an ideal, normative approach, rather than reflecting how the world actually looks. It relates to racism as it is the neglect of the interests of a race, or the prioritisation of a race that leads to racist policies (Study Guide, p. 63). Principle of equality would require the interests are weighed impartially, and seeing as weighing interests based on race is as arbitrary as hair colour or names and therefore irrelevant, it would eliminate much blatant racism. Singer (p. 27)holds even if different averages in IQ among different races were found, it wouldn’t result in different treatment as intelligence doesn’t affect basic human interests. This doesn’t rule all forms of racism, interests based on beliefs and statements, or attitudes and emotions are still considered (Study guide, p. 58).

Equality is the term for treating people fairly and offering the same chances, it’s not all about treating everyone in the same way, but recognising everyone is different, and they all have very different needs, but making sure they are met.

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

Peter Singer is one of the most well know philosophers of all time. He has many influential theories that make people ponder themselves and the people around them. In the past, Singer has argued that the obligation if one were to rush into a shallow pond to save a drowning child – which would cost one ruining their shoes- is equivalent to the obligation to donate to charities that help reduce poverty. Peter Singer created a video in 2009 and created a potential real life scenario: Imagine walking on a bridge over a shallow pond and you notice a child is drowning in the pond and is in trouble, on the verge of death.

According to the United Nations, a child dies of hunger every ten seconds. Likewise, millions of people worldwide live in poverty and do not know when they will eat again. While the typical American throws away leftover food, children are dying across the world from starvation. To put this into perspective: By the time you have started reading, a child has died of hunger. Bioethicist and utilitarian philosopher, Peter Singer, in his argumentative essay, “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” asserts that it is the individual's responsibility to save children in poverty. Singer utilizes many rhetorical strategies-- including appealing to pathos, repetition, and comparison of statistics-- to defend his argument: “Whatever money you’re spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away.” He adopts an analytical and indignant tone in order to convince Americans to donate money to save the lives of millions of children.

In Peter Singer’s article “All Animals are Equal,” Singer advocates for the basic principle of equality to be extended to animals. By the basic principle of equality, he means that all beings should receive equal consideration in relation to experiencing pain and pleasure.

Seems rhetorical, but the fact is animals live through this everyday, without even given the choice. As humans, we establish our authority among all living beings, but for what reasons? Are humans better than all other species? Or is it true that we should hold a precedence over nonhuman animals? The ultimate question then remains, should animals have as much or equal to the same rights as humans? Their are endless arguments for and against this question, and many sub arguments that go hand in hand with each side. In this paper, I will discuss the definition of what animal rights entails and expand on the history that developed it’s meaning. Furthermore, I will thoroughly discuss, reason, and explain each opinion presented by our current society as well as the positions held by previous philosophers. Lastly, I will draw a conclusion to the opinions presented by discussing my personal position on the argument of animal rights.

In more recent times the rising prevalence around animal ethics, in the world itself as well as in the realm of philosophy, a multitude of people are finding connection between the somewhat hidden prejudice of speciesism and the indisputable prejudices of sexism and racism. To fully grasp this association, one must first understand the seriously

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

Equality stands side by side with no contingencies. To be truly equal there has to be no disadvantages. A society cannot have equality when arbitrary hinders its growth. John Rawls a philosopher of egalitarianism believes that an equal society is essential to its productivity. It is not fair for moral Arbitrariness to have superiority over the less fortunate in justice and the free market. There should be opportunities given to start at the same starting point regardless of status quo. Everyone has an opinion on equality which fairly is their own. An opinion is just an opinion base on what the individual believe is right by how they feel. What if you could strip away outside inferences, opinions and see equality for what it is. The