Essay on Peter Singer's Views on the Killing of Animals

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 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

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

INSERT HOOK The topic of animal liberation is not typically an object of discussion. Most likely because people don’t understand what animals need to be liberated from. Peter Singer is a utilitarian philosopher. Peter Singer’s “Animal Liberation” offers a fascinating view on how humans perceive themselves in comparison to animals. The article examines the tyranny of humans over animals (non-humans). Singer believes humans need to expand their moral horizons so that the mistreatment of animals is a thing of the past and is seen as intolerable. Throughout his essay he states claims supporting his thesis and elaborates on them to hopefully get his audience to see where he is coming from. INSERT BETTER THESIS?

With this said I put this question to you. What gives us the right, as animals, to brutally abuse and kill other animals in the name of science and the selfish preservation of our own species? Especially when there are alternative methods available to us that don’t require the death of innocent animals.

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

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

Eating animals poses two moral questions. Is it wrong to raise and kill animals simply because humans enjoy the fleeting taste of their flesh? Do our differences from these animals justify their slaughter? The response to both of these questions is simple. Never. Many people believe that their superiority over animals is a justification to eat them. Animals have been traditionally defined as slaves and non-rational beings without moral reasoning, but these beliefs have been refuted for centuries.Even if these claims were true, these differences should encourage more, not less, moral consideration since they gather that animals cannot give or withhold their consent or

Peter Singer is one of Harriet 's professors at her college, whom treats her very respectfully, except for the fact that he fully believes in terminating the life of anyone diabled as if they were not human. However he is an animal rights activist, making him seem like quite somewhat of a hypocrate. Dispite his immoral opinion he makes an understandable arguement, that I feel leans to somewhat of survival of the fittest.

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.

To start off his argument, Singer wants to formulate that the most important moral distinction of any human/non-human is if any of them can suffer. If the human/non-human can suffer, then the human/non-human

Killing Animals Kills In Peter Singer’s, Animal Liberation, he argues on what he defines as speciesism. Speciesism is like racism, where it is the mistreatment of another species. The main idea of this piece is how we treat the animals we seem to co-exist with as a nation.

Singer’s argument in his book Animal Liberation is that we as humans should not inflict pain on animals even if they are of lesser intelligence than the average human. So we are given the hypothetical scenario that at some late stage of pregnancy the fetus will develop the ability to feel pain. If this is the case then the permissibility for abortions will be much greater. This is because if the fetus can feel pain the mother will probably use that as an argument to support aborting the baby so it can be saved from that pain. Singer’s argument definitely supports this case because his argument is about minimizing suffering regardless of if it is an animal or a human. So in this scenario the best way to minimize the fetus’ pain is by getting

It is much better to use animals for research rather than killing them for our meal. Why do people get so violent when animals are used for research? Why do they consider animal testing cruel and inhumane? People hunt animals and consume them. They look at them in circuses and zoos. In zoos, they are caged and not in their natural habitat. In circuses, they are used for entertainment.During all that no one ever feels that it is cruel to animals. How is that justified? People also use animal bodies to make several products.