Singer's Explanation Of Racism

“It is a simple fact that many, if not most, of today’s modern medical miracles would not exist if experimental animals had not been available to medical scientists. It is equally a fact that, should we as a society decide the use of animal subjects is ethically unacceptable and therefore must be stopped, medical progress will slow to a snail’s pace. Such retardation will in itself have a huge ethical ‘price tag’ in terms of continued human and animal suffering from problems such as diabetes, cancer, degenerative cardiovascular diseases, and so forth.”

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.

For Shelby, it seems as though Garcia contends an individual’s “attitudes” not his or her “beliefs” are what make the individual racist (479). Still, Shelby maintains that “beliefs are essential to and even sufficient for racism” (480). Basically, Shelby argues that in order to determine whether a person is racist or not, the reasons for one’s dislike of another must be evaluated. Shelby gives the hypothetical case of Stephen (white) disliking Andre (black) because Andre was having an affair with Stephen’s wife. In this example, Shelby illustrates that Stephen’s derives his dislike of Andre from Andre’s behavior not his race (480). Thus, Shelby raises the question of what racism actually signifies. Rather than disliking someone simply on the basis of skin color, Shelby suggests that is has a “deeper meaning” (480).

Race and the different racial characteristics have been the main topic of many debates all over the United States and has been for a long time. The topic of race continues to stay relevant because of the way race is regarded. In the expert from Patricia Williams “The Emperor’s New Clothes” she establishes multiple reasons on why and how racism is viewed in today’s day and time.

Racism, known as “the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.” (Oxford, 2013) When an individual mentions the word ‘racism’ almost all the time it will be referred to a black individual, not white nor any other race, but black. Over the years racism has repeatedly occurred whether it was said or done; some showed racism by the words they used, while others presented it by the racist acts they committed. Racism towards the black community has not only been shown by other races, but also by individuals who were there to keep them ‘safe’. Very contradictory yet true, that a black man’s worst

As we discover treatments for diseases such as rabies, feline leukemia, tetanus, anthrax, and much more, animals also bear the advantage of protection. In fact, humans share hundreds of diseases with animals. We also share similar organs allowing scientists to use animals as an essential model for the study of illnesses. Therefore, the work researchers perform sets a platform for an end result where both parties benefit. It can thus be concluded that those against animal research are covered by a counterintuitive notion because, without animal research, the animals whom they are fighting for would die due to a potentially curable disease. To deal with the ethical dilemma of animal research, countries like the United Kingdom have placed regulations that require the research scientists to show how and if they have considered alternative ways before they are given a license to continue with their research projects. Given these circumstances, we can conclude that the rise in animals used in research must mean that in the near future there may be major medical

Tatum uses David Wellman’s definition of racism to set up the way racism is talked about in this book, however I mildly disagree with this definition.While I disagree with this part in her book I strongly agree with the idea that race she be talked about at a young age. In Tatum 's book she states, “He defines racism as a ‘System of advantage based on race’” (Tatum 7). This quote states that minorities cannot be racist because they do not benefit from past oppression which has helped form this system. I mildly disagree with this statement because there are several problems that arise from having this belief. However, I think this is wrong. Because there is a hierarchy in race, minorities who are farther up the line might benefit while other minorities who are “lower” on the line are further oppressed. By holding this concept as true, we ignore the fact that interminority racism exists. Due to the fact that this hierarchy has been formed over time certain minorities might find it easier to be accepted by the general population, and therefore, may benefit from their placement on the ladder of race. For example, an Asian minority

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

Racism: the belief that all members of a specific race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race. This belief has been a part of society for many, many years, and while racism is slowly diminishing, there are still some who believe one's appearance and ethnicity are the defining point for their character. In Harper Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird, the citizens of Maycomb repeatedly misjudge African Americans. They treat them as garbage, and continuously make sure they feel left out and unwanted.

Singer responds by saying that when all species are given the same consideration of equality, would we prevent suffering? Bentham’s work explained how animals suffer, and if you have the ability to suffer then you must have interests. What Singer is trying to convey is that interests are a prerequisite to being human like, so if non-humans are able to have interests why can’t they have equal rights? To further his point, Singer states that are main contact with animals is at meal time. He describes vigorously the environment in which the animals have to live in.

Racism is any attitude, belief, behavior, or institutional arrangement that tends to favor one race or ethnic group over another (Gee & Ford, 2011; Krieger, 2014). It is based on observable characteristics, for example skin tone, facial features and hair. There are three types of racism: scientific, institutional/ systemic and interpersonal (Harrell, Burford, Cage, Nelson, Shearon, Thompson, & Green, 2011). All three types of racism attempt to justify the unequal privileges and disadvantages occurring in society.

The framework I plan to discuss is Peter Singer 's utilitarian view on animal rights. A general idea of what utilitarianism is can be described as the need for the many outweigh the needs of a few, or “majority rule” when it comes to happiness. Singer’s criteria for how a being gets rights is based on the ability to feel pleasure or pain. With this criteria it allows people who are mentally handicapped, the senile, and babies to have rights (Hozien). Most would agree that it would be cruel to not give these people rights, so Singer argues that since animals can feel pain and pleasure they also have rights. Although he believes that they should be treated equal he does admit that there is a range or difference of pain. He equates this to racism or in this case speciesism. For instance he states that

In his article “All Animals Are Equal,” Peter Singer discusses the widely-held belief that, generally speaking, there is no more inequality in the world, because all groups of formerly oppressed humans are now liberated. However, it often goes without notice that there are groups of nonhuman animals that continue to face unequal treatment, such as those that are consumed or used as scientific test subjects. Singer’s article criticizes the belief that because humans are generally more intelligent than nonhuman animals, then all humans are superior to all nonhuman animals. Singer argues that intelligence is an arbitrary trait to base the separation of humans and nonhumans, and declares that the only trait that one can logically base moral value is the capacity to have interests, which is determined by a creature’s ability to suffer. Singer explains that in order to stay consistent with the basic principle of equality, anything that has the capacity to suffer ought to have its needs and interests recognized, just as humans’ needs and interests are currently recognized through what he calls “equal consideration.” In this paper, I will explain Singer’s notion of equal consideration as the only relevant sense of equality and why it applies to the rights of both human and nonhuman species that are

Nevertheless, a public opinion poll has shown the approval of the use of animals in biomedical research because it leads to discovering new treatments and cures, along with the belief that it does not cause any pain in animals (Saraf and Kumaraswamy, 2013). Accordingly, the authors after the public opinion believed that all institutes for research should create an animal care and ethical committee that would give the consent that deems the use of the animal necessary only when there are no suitable alternatives, and this committee should be indispensable previous to any in vivo

The scientific use of animals is one of the most controversial political policies in the world. It contains a long history dated all the way back to the vivisection performed by Descartes in the seventeenth century1. In today’s society, the evolution of animal testing has changed to a mass scale use, anaesthetizing then with ethers and chloroform. Despite the fact that a well conducted animal experiment could generate great benefits for humans, there is an increasing dilemma when reviewing moral disagreements surrounding this topic. Animal activists feel that there may be a lack of legitimate reasons to permit animal testing for human benefits. In contrast, many scientists believe that the practice of using animals plays a vital role in advancing health and medical researches. In this essay, I argue that the government should construct a policy allowing scientific animal experiments, only when the benefits of the research exceed the harm caused to animal.