The Reading I Chose Is Animal Liberation, By Peter Singer

The argument for animal rights is an ever growing debate in modern society, with increasing amounts of people taking measures to protect the rights of all animals. This push for animal rights is a relatively new development, with Peter Singer acting as one of the lead advocates for this movement. Singer was one of the first philosophers to argue strongly for the equality amongst all creatures. His highly important article, “All Animals are Equal,” was published in 1974 sparking conversation over this issue. Singer is a believer in Utilitarianism, a moral code which was greatly influenced by the nineteenth century philosopher, John Stuart Mill. While Singer’s viewpoint follows much of Mill’s brand of utilitarianism, I will identify an important difference in each philosopher’s beliefs regarding “happiness” and how this leads to different application of the Greatest Happiness Principle.

In the article “A Change of Heart About Animals”, Rifkin asserts that humans are treating animals in the most atrocious way, and he claims that in order for their lives to improve, we need to definitely adjust ours. He uses great amount of logos, and several experiments done with different animals and tries his best to closely relate animals to us, humans. Rifkin although, never inserts a call for action to this problem throughout his article. Instead, he puts the emphasis on the pathos of the argument. In the world we are living in today, there is about 8.7 million different living species. Whether they are land or marine animals, they do play a big role in our community such as being apart of the food pyramid, assisting handicapped people wherever they go, or being a transportation for people living on farms and fields. With this being said, the ranking of animals in our community has brought up a heated argument in connection to their rights and welfare. Eight legged, four legged, or two legged land or sea animals do not comprehend the concept of rights. If we, humans, give animals “rights”, we are basically inferring the fact that we are like animals, and they have the entitlement to share our rights. Although they don’t understand rights, the fact that many of these animals are being treated inhumanely is wrong and animal welfare should be ingrained into this community rather than the massive inhumane treatment.

Peter Singer is defined by being the most positive influencer of all living philosopher in the world. An Australian moral philosopher, environmentalist and animal activist, most noted for his work of Animal Liberation that was published in 1975, a canonical text in animal rights/liberation theory (Singer, 2002). Singer is often found arguing the wrongfulness of what human society performs to millions of suffering animals. A vigorous activist who specializes in applied ethics and ethical issues (Singer, 2002). He firmly believes that as humans we should become just like him and think and feel the way he does. Following his way of life, we could become vegetarians and not perform any wrongfulness to animals that do not deserve to be eaten

“Speciesism and the Idea of Equality” by Bonnie Steinbock is a rebuttal to Peter Singer’s “Speciesism and the Idea of Equality”. The issue presented is should animal rights be considered on the same par as human rights? The conclusion is no, animal rights shouldn’t be on the same standing as human rights. There are several reasons that support this conclusion. The first reason is that humans have abilities that animals don’t have. Steinbock states, “It is not arbitrary or smug, I think, to maintain that human beings have a different moral status from members of other species because of certain capacities which are characteristic of being human” (225). There are three sub points within this argument that help her case. They include: human

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

To start with, The term Animal Rights did not emerge until the late 1970 's, according to Encyclopedia Britannica. In Particular, Richard Ryder, a British Psychologist, expressed his boldest ideas, but in order to get his word out around the world he needed assistance from one of the top Australian philosophers, Peter Singer. Singer published numerous of notable books such as " Animal liberation " which described in vivid detail, the grueling agony animals had to suffer. In fact, Pete Singer got his inspiration for his book " Animal liberation " from his view on utilitarianism, the belief that a morally good action is one that helps the greatest number of people and animals. Indeed, the phrase Animal Rights first surfaced in the 1970

On the topic of animal rights, Vicki Hearne and Peter Singer represent opposite ends of a belief spectrum. Singer describes, in numerous articles, that he believes animal rights should focus on if the animal is suffering, and the best option to prevent it is to limit interaction between animals and humans. Specifically, in “Speciesism and Moral Status” Singer compares the intelligence and ability of non-human animals to those with severe cognitive disabilities to establish an outrageous solution to animal belittlement. He uses logos (the appeal to reason) and ethos (the appeal to ethics), to question the current rights in place to appeal to other scholars. Nevertheless, his approach can cause an emotional disconnect to the readers; this apparent in contrast to Hearne’s pathos (the

Throughout the course of history, many people have used the power of language to manipulate audiences to gather support for their personal agenda or gain. Donald Trump speech is an example of using the power of language to manipulate people. President Donald Trump told about two dozen chief executives of major U.S. companies that he plans to bring many millions of jobs back to the United States. When it comes to the topics of bringing jobs back people will readily agree. In the article “A Change Of Heart about Animals”, Jeremy Rifkin, author and president of the foundation of economic trends in Washington D.C, suggests in a seemingly, unbiased fashion, that animals “are more like us than we had ever imagined” (Rifkin). With the support

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

The two most prominent current defenders of strong status for animals are neo-Kantian philosopher Tom Regan and utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer. Although they undertake this defence from two different theoretical perspectives, as neo-Kantians defend this position in terms of rights, and utilitarians tend to avoid talking in terms of rights, they arrive at the same conclusion: there is no difference between humans and animals which can justify the conclusion that a human life is of greater value than an animal life.

The main theme of Animal Liberation by Peter Singer is summarized in one quote by Isaac Bashevis Singer, “In their behavior towards creatures, all men [are] Nazis” (84). Singer spends the whole book attempting to prove that Nazis and the abusers of animals are the same. He does this by talking about scientific testing and the way animals are treated before being killed for their meat. He dives into the specifics of what happens during animal testing and animals killed for meat in order to appeal to the humanity of the reader in order to exploit it. By exploiting the humanity of the reader Singer attempts to guilt the reader into becoming a vegetarian.

In “The Case for Animal Rights,” Tom Regan emphasizes his philosophy on animal and human equality. After reading further into his work, he illustrates a societal system that belittles animals and their significance to our own existence. Regan conceptualizes that animals won’t have real rights unless we change our beliefs. We need to acknowledge a problem. After identifying the issue, we must recognize that there is a need for change in society. In addition, he also reiterates the importance of the populace changing the way they view animals. The way society views animals will create a snowball effect that will influence politicians to also believe in animal rights.

The Vancouver Aquarium uses dolphins and belugas to provide entertainment and utilizes the profit gained, to aid them in research. In The Case for Animal Rights, Tom Regan’s moral principles state that there should be total abolition of the use of animals in science as well as for entertainment purposes (337). Moreover, he claims that humans and animals have equal values and rights. Based on this principle, I argue that the practices of the Vancouver Aquarium of using belugas and dolphins for scientific and entertainment purposes is immoral and thus unjustified.

Throughout history morality has been a topic of intense debate. Innumerable thinkers have devoted immense amounts of time and energy to the formulation of various ethical theories intended to assist humans in their daily lives. These theories set out guidelines which help to determine the rightness or wrongness of any given action and can therefore illuminate which choice would be morally beneficial. And while many of these theories differ substantially, most have at least one common underlying principle, namely that humans deserve to be treated with a certain level of respect. This idea comes from the belief that all humans have interests which are significant enough to be considered, hence no one should impede another

Animal rights is not just a philosophy, but a kind of social movement that challenges this society’s view that all nonhuman animals only exist for the sole purpose of human’s benefit. It’s the idea that all non-human animals are entitled to possession of their own lives and that their basic interests should be afforded the same consideration at basic interests of humans. It’s not about putting an animal above a human, or giving an animal the same rights a human is entitled to. Every creature has a will to live free from suffering and pain. Prejudice is a preconceived opinion that is not based on a reason or an actual experience. Only prejudice allows humans to deny others all the rights we expect to have. Whether that is based on race, gender, species, or sexual orientation, prejudice is morally unacceptable. Knowing what animal rights are is important because awareness needs to be raised on the subject. That way, more legislature may be put in place to stop all forms of animal cruelty.