Peter Singer's Argument For Ethical Treatment Of Animals

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.

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

In this paper I will present the charge of speciesism contended by many animal right’s activists. I will attempt to substantiate Immanuel Kant’s view on animal morality and justify how his philosophy is not in violation of speciesism. Furthermore, I will explain how the Kantian view still grants animals some moral consideration through the designation of “indirect duties”. Lastly, I will present a difficulty with accepting the Kantian view of “indirect duties” towards animals.

In his book all animals are equal, Singer argues that human beings should extend to non-human species the same equality of consideration that is extended to fellow human beings. He based his argument on the fact that past liberation movements aimed at condemning discriminations based on gender and sex had been declared absurd at their onset, but had later on yielded fruits. This discrimination against animals, he argues, is similar to these past discriminations. For this reason, he wants the human species to consider non-human animals as having rights just as humans have. In his opinion, the only criterion of moral importance that succeeds in including human beings and excluding all non-humans, is their membership in the homo-sapiens species category, and using this membership as a criterion of moral importance, is completely arbitrary. In other words Singer believes that we should attach importance to the interests of individuals without regard to their species (Daly, 1997). A human being should not be considered superior to a cow just because one is a cow and the other is a dog.

In sum, Singer in no way claims that the pains or interests of humans and animals measures or perceived as equal. He merely asserts that humans and animals both experience them, and that their equality in this sense is irrelevant (Singer, 1977). While it is fair to judge animals differently than humans in this sense, Singer argues that to do so simply because they are animals is immoral. Moreover, he deems to discriminate in such a way, because we are more evolved, is an act of

On the contrary, animals are subjects of a life, therefore; they are entitled to rights and moral considerations, just as humans are entitled to rights and moral considerations. Although they cannot express their feelings as strongly as humans, animals are fully capable of pain and suffering. Despite the fact animal rights are weaker in strength and content, this does not establish they should be abandoned of rights altogether. It is typically burdensome for some humans to set aside their beliefs in that animals are necessary solely for the good of humanity. These individuals should realize, if in cases where animals are absolutely demanded for survival of humanity, it is of moral obligation to ensure they be treated in the most optimal humane aspects. Animals are deserving of their rights to entail them of a pleasurable life, free from pain. Although they cannot be considered moral agents, treating animals less than deserving of moral consideration, as well as denying them of their rights, is truly erroneous. As humans, it is our moral obligation to unceasingly take nonhuman animals into moral consideration, to ensure their rights and interests are contented, as well as see to it that all animals are treated no less than

Animals have an interest to live, be free, survive, and be safe as they are of fundamental importance to the animals, because they do not belong to human beings, they belong to nature. Also, there are moral arguments for animals but it turns out to be simple words towards “speciesism.” The relationship that the author draws is that gradualism endorses scientific experiments on animals whereas speciesism is the superior moral value of species (experimenting on animals without any compulsion). However, the difference between human beings and animals is that they have different cognitive abilities, neurobiological structures, and treatment responses that allow different treatments between the two species. The author emphasizes on two opposing arguments between Bentham and Feinberg. Bentham has the opinion that wishing for something to be an equity or being in need of something is not the same as simply being or acquiring a right. On the other hand, in Feinberg’s perspective, a participant’s moral right therefore is a “genuine moral right.” Finally, the author concludes that the arguments rely on assumptions that there will be complete denial of animal rights because of their occurrences of conflict with human rights in certain

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.

Peter Singer’s argument in “All Animals are Equal” dictates that the principle of equality should be extended to all animals. He defines that equality must mean “equality of consideration: equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and rights” (Singer 18). This very definition clearly articulates that not every animal will be treated equally, but will be treated with equal worth. Singer claims that “no matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering... of any other being” (Singer 20). His principle of equality extends a very humanitarian idea; an idea that treats every species with the respect that it deserves.

In the 20th century much progress has been made towards human rights and animal rights. Humans seek equality between the male and female sexes, religion, and ethnicity. On the animal rights side, philosophers such as Peter Singer in his book “Animal Liberation”, point out that animals deserve equal consideration with regard to suffering. Singer uses the term “speciesism” to describe the discrimination of non-humans based on species (1990). He argues that it is morally wrong to knowingly

The strongest pro animal rights answer to this question would be that non-human animals have exactly the same moral status as humans and

However, an animals inherent value doesn't depend on how useful they are to the world, and it doesn't diminish if they are a burden to others (BBC). The purpose of Animal rights are to teach people that there are some things that are morally wrong to do to animals and that animals deserve to be treated with respect. Human beings and adult mammals have rights because they are both 'subjects-of-a-life'(BBC). This means that like humans, animals have similar levels of biological complexity, are conscious and aware that they exist, and live in such a way as to give themselves the best quality of life. I admit that non-human animals lack many of the advanced capabilities that humans have, but that does not mean they do not deserve direct moral consideration and protection from

And this is a big concern to many people who are interested in justice and equity and not many people have accepted or allowed themselves that animals also have moral standings with us, humans. To many people, this is embarrassing and cannot take that

Each and every human around the world have always and still are mistreating animals and not giving them the respect they need. They have always been put in danger by many of us. Animals are creatures that should not be treated like trash. They are part of this world that god has brought, just like he brought us humans as well. Animals do matter as individuals, and many of us do not realize that. The death and mistreatment of animals has become a serious issue around the world. “All animals have the ability to suffer in the same way and to the same degree that humans do. They feel pain, pleasure, fear, frustration, loneliness, and motherly love” (Singer 2). Therefore we all have equal feelings just like them, Animals should have virtuous rights.

Immanuel Kant, an 18th century philosopher argues that human beings have an intrinsic worth that makes them valuable above all else, especially animals. In his argument, Kant postulated the soul as necessary for giving unity to the human person and found that it is not the human body that gives human beings their dignity, but their rationality and their status as rational beings and moral agents. Animals in Kant’s state of mind are a means to an end (the end being man) and overall have no importance. But if rationality is the key to being dignified, then animals are dignified organisms and in turn have great importance to this world than Kant gives them credit for.