Peter Singer: Sentience vs Self-Conciousness Essay

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.

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.

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

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

is a text of great importance in the animal right movement. All of these achievements make Singer a credible

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

Another point the Singer brings up is how humans let their own interests take priority over other species. The fact that we eat animals shows that we think of them as nothing more than a "means to our ends". This is true because there are other, more nutritional, ways to meet our needs. By doing this we cause additional suffering for animals. Moreover, the cruel behavior that we put these animals through before they are killed for us to eat. Yet another type of discrimination we perform on these animals is experimentation to see the effects of substances and if they are safe on humans. Animal experimentation and consumption is wrong except if we were willing to perform the same acts on a human with similar capabilities. Singer reasons that, "a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month" (LaFollette, 110). He argues that if we cannot experiment on humans with severe brain damage or defective infants, then we should not experiment on animals. Furthermore, killing animals for food would be the same as killing these humans for food. Singer is saying that if instead of treating these defective infants that do not stand a chance; we should use them to test medical treatments, which in the end is the greater good for more people. The last aspect of speciesism that Singer talks about is philosophers trying to draw a distinct, clear line

Singer believes that not just humans, but animals have the interest in not suffering which is believed to be speciesism and wrongful. Once we properly understand the idea of moral equality, there is no reason to deny that animals have interests that are equal to human interests.

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 main theme of Animal Liberation by Peter Singer is summarized in one quote by Isaac Bashevis Singer, “In their behavior towards creatures, all men [are] Nazis” (84). Singer spends the whole book attempting to prove that Nazis and the abusers of animals are the same. He does this by talking about scientific testing and the way animals are treated before being killed for their meat. He dives into the specifics of what happens during animal testing and animals killed for meat in order to appeal to the humanity of the reader in order to exploit it. By exploiting the humanity of the reader Singer attempts to guilt the reader into becoming a vegetarian.

One of the most controversial topics in modern philosophy revolves around the idea of non-human animals being considered human people. Controversy over what makes up an actual person has been long debated. However, society deems it as a set of characteristics. The average person normally does not realize how complicated a question this is, and in fact many scientists, philosophers, and individuals will side differently on this specific topic. I personally do not believe that animals are capable of being human people, but throughout this argumentative paper I will address critical views presented from multiple philosophers on why this seems to be the case.

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

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).

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.