The Rhetorical Analysis Of Peter Singer's Animal Liberation

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.

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.

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

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

Rhetoric is a persuasive tool, consisting of logos which is logic and reasoning, pathos which is emotional language and ethos which is character and fundamental values. Rhetoric is a fundamental thing used by pigs and importantly Squealer, whom persuade other animals to follow the pig’s decisions and needs.

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

Peter Singer present the argument “They’re here, they are selling stuff at incredible prices, thousands of dollars for a dress or a handbag or whatever it might be. And at the same time, of course, we are living in world in which there are about a billion people who are struggling to survive on less than on U.S. dollar per day. With some more aid from the developed world, untold deaths could be prevented”p.61-62 (Taylor, 2009) in his opening statement to Astra Taylor while strolling down 5th Ave in New York City. This statement sets the tone for his discussion on ethics in the Western World and how he believes ethic and morality go hand in hand and establishes the rhetorical situation that will be repeated throughout the interview. This idea

Mark Sagoff, ‘Animal Liberation and Environmental Ethics: Bad Marriage, Quick Divorce’, in Environmental Philosophy, edited by Michael E. Zimmerman, et al. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1993, pp. 84-94

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.

In Peter Singer’s piece “All Animals Are Equal”, he begins his argument by an in-depth consideration of notable rights movements, such as the Black Liberation and women’s rights movement, then segues into the justification for equal consideration of rights regarding animals, before finally exposing the immorality behind factory farming and animal cruelty. According to Singer, “the basic principle of equality…is equality of consideration; and equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights” (Singer 1974, 506). Based off proposed animals’ rights to equal consideration, Singer formats his main arguments against factory farming and the mistreatment of animals in general. These arguments stem from

Is the killing of animals wrong? This is an issue that is currently being argued. In the world there are people who kill animals to eat them while there are others that feel that it is inhumane to kill defenseless animals. There are many factors over which animals are killed. For example, animals that are suffering due to an illness, animals that have shown to be dangerous around us, for food, and to maintain the animal’s population balanced. Some people have argued that killing animals for food is not the only way to feed ourselves, since we produce vegetation. These people think that animals should have the same rights as humans. People feel this way because they feel that animals feel everything that we feel, such as pain, loss,

In Peter Singer’s article All Animals Are Equal (Winston 29-36), Singer talks about the point of view Jeremy Bentham had on the capacity to suffer, going into Bentham’s idea on what humans would do with non-human animals in order to satisfy our taste for their flesh. That in order to have meat products on the table at an affordable price to the population of that area, we must treat non-human animals like machines, enclosing them in unsuitable conditions for their entire life (p. 33).

Singer explains that the liberation of previously oppressed groups is due to “an expansion of our moral horizons and an extension or reinterpretation of the basic moral principle of equality.” In other words, although these groups differed in some way from what was considered the norm, in order to remain consistent with moral values, it was necessary to expand equality to these groups. Although some may argue that all humans are equal and thus, all deserve equal rights, Singer points out that there are actually stark differences between individual

Peter Singer addresses the ordeal of animal rights better than I have ever seen anyone address it. His analysis laid out in A Utilitarian Defense of Animal Liberation is remarkably stated. He pushes the viewer to see animals as equals to us.