The Two Principles Of A Basis Of Our Brain Capacity, Ability, And Preferences Of Life

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.

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

As humanity becomes more civilized, many of us perceive that eating livestock is morally incorrect, but aren’t we are designed to be an omnivore? Our teeth and digestive system serve the purpose of breaking down animal and plant foods and to bring these important nutrients to every part of the body. Despite the fact that, in 2011, U.S. meat and poultry production reached more than 92.3 billion pounds, the ethic of killing and eating animals as well as the concern of the environmental burden caused by the production of meats is debatable. However, animal based diet is necessary for the human body to function properly and we can choose the meat produced from environmentally sustainable farms to avoid the moral ambiguity.

The question of the correct ethical treatment of animals has been a topic of many heated debates. The basis of this discussion arises numerous premises that justifies the treatment of animals. Whether animal do in fact have a sentient? And what is distinctive about humanity such that humans are thought to have moral status and non-human do not? Providing an answer to the correct ethical treatment of animals has become increasingly paramount among society as well as philosophers.

The idea that all humans are born equal has been something that has been almost installed in our minds. However, in the eyes of Peter Singer, we as humans are constantly violating our own moral code in the way we treat animals. Singer refers to this as speciesism and compares our treatment of animals to the same way sexists and racists treat those who they deem inferior. He also argues that the grounds on which they base their prejudice on are equally fragile. He illustrates this by comparing speciesists to racists. He recalls, “The racists violates the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of his own race…similarly the speciesist allows the interests of his own species to override the greater interests of members of another species” (53.) He initiates this argument by explaining how our willingness to declare all humans as equal when the opposite is fundamentally true. Singer writes, “Like it or not, we must face the fact that humans come in different shapes and sizes; they come with differing moral capacities, differing intellect…if the demand for equality was based on the actual equality of all human beings, we would have to stop demanding equality” (51). Singer seeks to establish that our push for equality ends once the being in question is no longer human. Once he establishes this, he can quickly draw parallels between our unequal treatment of animals and humans. He evolves what initially begins as a far-fetched claim to a nuanced and

In human history, several oppressed human groups have campaigned for equality, demanding for an expansion on the moral view of life, and to be treated fairly and have consideration. This means that when an issue concerns this group, their voices are heard, and treated with value. This equality should not be determined by that group’s collective intelligence level, the colour of their skin, or the physical stren¬¬gth of their bodies. Peter Singer brings up a similar idea in his essay: “All Animals Are Equal”, that non-human animals should have equal consideration with humans when an issue concerns them (Singer, quoted in Williston, p. 29-36). Going into a specific set of non-human animals known as primates, I argue that primates should have

Peter Singer and Tom Regan are two important philosophers when it comes to securing the protection of non-human animals through gaining moral considerability. Both philosophers have the same end goal, equality for animals, but each philosopher takes a different path to get there. In this essay I will discuss both Singer’s and Regan’s methods that they feel are the best in accomplishing moral considerability. I will first begin with Singer’s utilitarian approach and then move on to discuss Regan’s rights approach. Once I have fully described both arguments I will then discuss how the approaches are similar and different. I will then argue that Regan has the stronger approach in securing animal moral considerability through his more realistic

Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this

When discussing the expansion of legal rights and justice for non-humans, it is important to acknowledge how this could be potentially harmful to humans. Opponents to the legal rights of non-humans could argue the Great Ape Project has resulted in absurd suggests for the extension of legal rights. With research and tests being carried out on Dolphins, since the Great Ape Project some scientists have argued in favour of extended legal rights many non-human species. As a fairly balanced article in The Independent newspaper article points out, tell us that at symposium evidence and arguments were aired about the levels of consciousness and emotion in a range non-humans including sheep, cows, cockroaches, slugs and snails (Mee, B. 2000). Opponents

The majority of the population would consider it up surd to entertainor even considersuch an idea of equal rights to animals. However, this is exactly the position Peter Singer, author of, “All Animals Are Equal” has taken. Singer holds the unpopular beliefofequalhappiness of humansand nonhumancreature of occupying the world.Singerbelieves that all animals, with no specificity of dumb animals or smart animals but all animalsshould be granted moral status, similar to that of thecounterpart, humans. Singer articulatesthis argument in an affirming way. He draws the conclusion, that nonhuman entitiesshould be given equal status and moral consideration as human entities is reached though hispresentation of premises that if an entity can shield,

One of the most controversial topics in modern philosophy revolves around the idea of non-human animals being considered human people. Controversy over what makes up an actual person has been long debated. However, society deems it as a set of characteristics. The average person normally does not realize how complicated a question this is, and in fact many scientists, philosophers, and individuals will side differently on this specific topic. I personally do not believe that animals are capable of being human people, but throughout this argumentative paper I will address critical views presented from multiple philosophers on why this seems to be the case.

Seems rhetorical, but the fact is animals live through this everyday, without even given the choice. As humans, we establish our authority among all living beings, but for what reasons? Are humans better than all other species? Or is it true that we should hold a precedence over nonhuman animals? The ultimate question then remains, should animals have as much or equal to the same rights as humans? Their are endless arguments for and against this question, and many sub arguments that go hand in hand with each side. In this paper, I will discuss the definition of what animal rights entails and expand on the history that developed it’s meaning. Furthermore, I will thoroughly discuss, reason, and explain each opinion presented by our current society as well as the positions held by previous philosophers. Lastly, I will draw a conclusion to the opinions presented by discussing my personal position on the argument of animal rights.

In Stanley Benn’s “Egalitarianism and Equal Consideration of Interests”, it is explained that animals and human imbeciles are distinguished not because of fundamental inequality, but solely on the basis that the two subjects are of different species. In regard to animals’ moral rights and the infringement of those rights due to the practice of speciesism, Singer employs a utilitarian style of argument to defend animals’ moral rights; in short, the interests of each being which is involved should be taken into consideration and said interests should be given the same weight as that of another being. Speciesism is morally wrong because it attempts to assign undeserved weight to the interests of beings of separate species, solely based off the difference of species. Naturally, or rather unnaturally, human beings have always awarded themselves the utmost importance due to the idea of human dignity, as in humans occupy the central spot within any earthly ranking. Logically, Singer argues that the practice of speciesism is wrong because the conditions in which it exists are synonymous to the conditions which facilitate racism and sexism, before they had been recognized as

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

It doesn’t make sense to eat meat when there is no need to do so. Humans can live long, happy, and healthy lives on an all plant-based food diet. Sense this is correct, there is no need to continue to put these animals in pain that is no longer necessary for our survival. The treatment of these animals is inhumane and brutal. This treatment is equivalent to a person beating up your dog and killing it because they think it is fun. The only plausible reason humans eat meat is merely for the taste of it. Who doesn’t like a nice juicy steak, but if you were to really know about what it took for that piece of meat to reach your dinner table and truly understand the pain and suffering, then you would never order that piece of steak again.