Similarities Between Peter Singer And Tom Regan

This argument: that rational beings must be considered ends in themselves, was the lifeblood of the movements of the 1970s that sought to bring oppressed groups under the umbrella of equal moral consideration. These prolonged and often violent debates revolved around demands for equality through which oppressed groups could attain their liberation. As such it is not surprising that the movement for animal liberation stems from these concerns. In fact, they are explicitly allied with them. Peter Singer’s seminal text Animal liberation is deliberately called so to evoke memories of the fortitude and determination of these earlier movements for human liberation. Singer emphasises rationality and self-consciousness of some animals as evidence

Traditionally the treatment of non-human animals is considered a trivial matter because these animals lacked souls and are created to serve mankind. But the utilitarian’s took a different viewpoint in how we treat animals. Peter Singer is one of them and he guided the liberation of animals, which is akin to women liberation movement in the 18th century.

In “The Case for Animal Rights,” Regan states that instead of viewing animals as existing solely for human disposal, or as having value only because they retain the same feelings of pain and satisfaction humans do, we should consider animals as

For years we have struggled with rights water its humans or nonhumans, and what has rights. Who decides who has rights? There are many organizations that try to help make animal right known such as Friends of Animals, Animal Aid and many more. However, there are still injustices occurring nonhumans. I analyzed three articles to find out what causes nonhuman inequality.“Weighing and Protecting life: Beyond Speciesism, Welfarism, and legalism,” Steven Best will be my first source. Best focuses on the word speciesism, it goes in-depth into why people subconscious label animals as species. On the contrary Richard York, “Humanity and Inhumanity: Toward a Sociology of the Slaughterhouse” has a different point of view. York speaks

In Peter Singer's article all animals are equal, Peter Singer argues for the moral considerability of animals. His main argument boils down to, we ought to extend to nonhuman animals the same equality of consideration that we extend human beings. Now whether or not eating meat is morally justifiable is a good question. In this paper, I will argue that it is not morally justifiable to eat meat, however with the exception of a few alternatives. The immorality of killing an animal for its flesh is morally wrong, for example most of the meat that we consume in urban modern societies is from factory farms. Factory farms employ extremely cruel farming tactics, for example putting up to six chickens in a single cage this gives them barely enough room to move or even open the wings. Chickens for example raised in factory

The idea that industrial farming is bad for the environment is well known, but what people do not think about is horrible practice of factory farms within industrial farming. Factory farms are inhumane and not only because the animal is being slaughtered, but because of the way the animals are treated before the are killed. A person would think that if they were to be innocently killed that they would want to be treated with respect and dignity before they die. In this paper, I will argue that animals have rights through a utilitarian view and that they should not be treated in an inhumane way.

In Peter Singer’s article, “Ethics and the New Animal Liberation Movement,” ideas of animal liberation are introduced from various perspectives. This article really probed a serious amount of critical thinking for me. After I read it, it made me really think about the treatment of animals by humans.

This approach tries to increase the good that is done, and reduce the harm. Singer says that showing kindness to animals and protecting them from harm is good, but it’s not enough5. He believes that animals should be given the same respect as that given to humans.4 Singer also believes the boundary of equality is defined by sentience. If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into

Singer firsts sets up the basis of animal equality by using comparisons to women’s equality as well as race and gender equality. With women’s rights he concludes that because men and women are in many ways similar they should have similar rights. This sets up a counter argument that may say, since animals and humans are so different, nonhuman animals shouldn’t have equal rights. To

We must address the idea that we must treat all animals with this idea of equality of consideration in regard to satisfying their needs and interests (Singer

An important part of the debate over animal rights centers on the question of the moral status of an animal. Most people agree that animals have at least some moral status – that is why it is wrong to abuse pets or needlessly hurt other animals. This alone represents a shift from a past view where animals had no moral status and treating an animal well was more about maintaining human standards of dignity than respecting any innate rights of the animal. In modern times, the question has shifted from whether animals have moral status to how much moral status they have and what rights come with that status.

It is important to acknowledge animals, and their part in the moral community. Since animals are considered to be moral patients due to the fact they “lack rights or lack the cognitive powers needed to be a moral agent” (pg. 286). As human beings, and moral agents we “owe them duties of respect, which protect them against the current practices involved in factory farming” (pg.286).

For example, the purpose of our wildlife rehabilitation program falls in line with Regan’s idea because we understand that animals have intrinsic worth they have right to survive and receive treatment in case an emergency circumstance similar treatment a human would. Animals receive the treatment and at the end, they are released back into the wild. However, our adoption shelter program fails to correspond with Regan’s idea because adopting an animal essentially implies ownership of the animal regardless of an intimate relationship between the animal and human. In this case, we contest Regan’s idea because we positively believe that the people who adopt from our shelters are genuinely looking for a furry family member rather than a pet. A family member whose interests and preferences are given equal consideration as a human family member and to the large extent, animals have rights as any other family member. From the surface, the process of adoption may imply ownership, but there is much more than that; therefore, abolishment of adoption is

Throughout history, the question of how animals should be treated and whether or not animals have rights has been one of the most intensely debated questions in philosophy, particularly in the Western world. Since the time of Aristotle, Plato, and Pythagoras, philosophers have attempted to integrate the treatment of animals into various schools of philosophical thought and clarify the proper relationship between humans and animals. One of the most pertinent challenges to address is the question as to what is distinctive about humans that gives them certain moral rights and status that other creatures do not possess. Numerous philosophers, including Immanuel Kant and his contemporary Jeremy Bentham, have attempted to address this issue in their

Animal welfare has been a very controversial issue within our society, whether it would the habitat destruction of California gnatcatchers in southern California to the elephants of sub-Saharan Africa being hunted for their tusks. Moreover, there has been one topic that has been discussed and hotly debated, which is the animal welfare within farms and the conditions that they live in, specifically pigs, calves, and pigs. Environmental ethics is a discipline within philosophy that studies the moral relationship of human beings and also the value and moral standing of the environment and its non-human factors. Furthermore, it takes a biocentric approach because it takes into consideration the fact that all animals are sentient creatures