Singer's Argument Against Animal Suffering

Speciesism, as defined by Peter Singer, “is a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species” (Singer, Animal Liberation, p. 6). The rationale for the preferential treatment encapsulated in this definition is simply the fact that those receiving the preferred treatment belong to the same species, and not on the basis of any grounds of higher intelligence or other attributes.

Speciesism is the belief that humans are inherently superior to all other animals, solely based on their species membership. This widely held belief is used to justify the blatant discrimination of nonhuman animals, resulting in a lack of moral rights and the exploitation of defenseless beings.

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 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

Singer argues that experimenting on animals is a form of speciesism in the second part of his article. After concluding his thoughts on eating animals, he delves into a discussion on why scientists should not experiment on animals. He begins his argument by stating that it is discriminatory to

Speciesism is a prejudice for or against a certain species. It is the belief that all and only human beings have moral status. Peter Singer, in “All Animals are Equal”, points out that people are contradicting themselves when they make the argument that non-human animals do not deserve the same rights as humans just because animals do not have the same intellectual abilities as us. Singer points out that humans come with different moral capacities and intellectual abilities, such as humans with irreparable brain damage and infant humans, so if people were to argue that animals don’t deserve the same equality as humans because they are basing it on actual equality, then humans who lack certain abilities and characteristics would also not deserve the same equality.

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

Yes, I believe that people should treat each other in a human and respectful way. People should also treat animals with some respect, as well as nature and the environment. However, when Singer built his argument he ignored the blunt facts of nature. When Peter used the term “speciesism” it came off as unnatural. I believe that just because something in nature happens it does not mean it is unethical. Singer implied that “speciesism” discriminated based of species, is strictly a human phenomenon. An individual would have to go out of their way to ignore Peter’s statement. Every anima, to some extent, practices speciesism. They practice it in a way to make sure their specie has more of a chance of surviving. Most all life forms in fact practice this concept. The species want to make sure that their own is doing well. When going about this all species do not have to harm other species. The species sometimes work together in that by doing one thing, it could help out another species. In nature, there is a process of how things go. With the process of nature it can sometimes be destructive, with that being said it is present in nature that it does not validate the term “speciesism”. When Singer discusses this in his article, he is very misleading on what exactly he

The term specicism, popularised by Peter Singer, is used to refer to a prejudice in the treatment of species that favours one’s own species above others. Singer proposes that there is a similar gravity between speciesism, a relatively unknown and uncommon term, and racism, which carries a lot of weight when used in modern society. I believe this stems from Singer’s perception that semantically they are the same. If someone is to assume they are superior to another based on their own race compared to the others’; they are clearly guilty of racism. Therefore, the premise that if someone is to assume they are superior to something else based on their species; they are also clearly guilty of specicism (Singer 1979). In other words, the mere

Peter Singer’s All Animals Are Equal, represents his utilitarian approach of the concept of equality. Peter singer’s key motive for this article is for humans to extend the principle of moral equality to other species. Furthermore, that there should be this extension of consideration of respect to non-human lives that has always been equally given to human lives. He sets up is argument for speciesism essentially saying how drawing this type of divide can be seen as arbitrary. According to Singer, the concept of equality does not mean same for everyone because everyone is not the same. Instead equality should be looked as equal consideration. Singer uses sexism and racism as one way to prove this argument.

Peter Singer’s essay on “Animal Liberation” was published in the New York Review in 1963. Ultimately, in this essay, Singer was trying to get humans to realize how they are treating non-humans, and that changes need to happen. Firstly, Singer claims that animals suffer just like humans do. He uses Jane Goodall and her chimpanzee research as an example. Jane Goodall taught a chimpanzee to talk with sign language, with this she was able to see how the chimpanzee was feeling emotionally, she found they occasionally share a cheering pat on the back or a clasp of the hands, much like humans would do to show friendship or agreement. Singer also acknowledges the opposing view of this point. Wittingstein says that humans cannot believe that beings without language can have a consciousness. Singer quickly disagrees with that argument by stating that feelings like pain are much more primitive than language. Singer’s next argument is about medical testing, he uses a journal by Richard Ryder that has a variety of procedures Ryder carried out during animal testing. One entry that Singer uses is an LD50 test done on a cat. The cat was injected with Tubocuraine, which caused the animal to jump straight from the table to its cage. The cat then, started calling very loudly and was very restless and jerky. Then it fell and started jerking in rapid movements repeatedly. The reaction was repeated several times in ten

Racism is the discrimination of one other due to their racial origin, usually involving the idea of inferiority. Specicism, is considered to be carrying a bias nature to the species to which one belongs. [Lafollette, Hugh and Shanks, Niall (1996). "The Origin of Speciesism"] Singer draws parallels between specicism and racism through comparing the grounds on which whose interests and suffering takes precedence. Singer believes that discarding the moral status of animal concerns in their exploitation as they are not of our species and therefore insignificant, mimics that of the prejudice of white slave owners against discarding the moral status of the interests and suffering of their African Slaves [Peter Singer Practical Ethics, 2nd edition]. Speciests, give greater weight to the interests of members of their own species when there is clash of interests and concerns, similarly, racists give greater weight to the interest of members of their own race when there is a clash of interest or concern. [Peter Singer Practical Ethics, 2nd edition] Given the principle of equal consideration of interest (the moral principle stating that when calculating the rightness and morality of an action, all affected interests should be included and weighed equally) ; it follows that equal moral concern is raised when a human of any race is suffering, so therefore, it also follows that equal moral concern should also be raised when a human or non human animal is suffering. [Peter Singer Practical

In his interview with Stephen Colbert, Dr. Singer discusses the rights that animals should have. He talks about how we “imprison chimpanzees without trial but we do not do the same to humans without proper cause, in most

The fight for equality is a never ending one. Who or what is considered a person is constantly revised and redefined. It should not come as a surprise that the newest addition to the discussion is whether or not animals should be considered persons. One person to join this conversation is Peter Singer, the author of the paper, “All Animals Are Equal”, and believer that sentient animals should be given equal rights. Within the debate of whether animals should be on a level playing field with humans, there is a variety of stances that rely on the definitions used within the argument. Since Peter Singer’s definition of what should constitute as a person is could result in the discrimination of species based on the the idea of what an animal is as well as what is defined as pain, it is an unclear and ineffective definition. The term animal can be split up into many different groups, each of which excluding a number of sentient species, which in itself is speciesist. Also, it is debatable as to whether or not some invertebrates are able to suffer, and depending on which classification is used, these animals can be discriminated against. Although the fight for equality is an honourable one, there needs to be a collective agreement as to what constitutes as a person or else there will be no progress.

Despite each person’s differing views on whether animals are companions or just a way to further medical research, most people would agree that animals can feel pain and should be treated fairly. Each person should