Utilitarian Vs Singer

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

In Peter Singer’s article, All Animals are Equal, Singer claims that animals deserve the same equal rights and respect that the human lives get. His strongest argument is defined by all animals, human or non-human shall be defined as equal. Singer makes some very strong arguments within his article, but I feel some of his statements are humanist. As an animal lover and mother to two pets, I disagree that not all animals or living things endure the same amount. However, I do agree that animals do deserve the rights to live lives as animals should. This paper will analyze Singer’s argument in relation to the specific issue of animal equal rights. It will also include the counterarguments I have against his claims of his article.

The killing of animals has been ubiquitous almost since the creation of the world. Some animals are killed as a sacrifice to a “greater being”. Other animals are killed for food. Finally, some animals are killed for sport, that is, human leisure.

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

In Philosopher Peter Singer’s All Animals are Equal argumentative essay, Singer wants to emphasize the idea that animals should be considered to have equal moral value like humans. In Singer’s argument to liberate the rights of animals, he acknowledges the potential rights of non-humans and how they should be granted equal moral consideration. Clearly, there are obvious differences between a human and a non-human, but Singer wants to establish a relationship from a moral standpoint in order to reason for equal treatment between the two types.

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 his essay, Singer brings up key ideas that give insight to the readers as to why they should follow utilitarianism and vegetarianism. He argues that pain and pleasure are the basis of all moral values and because animals experience pain and pleasure, this makes them morally significant as well. Singer also states that utilitarianism gives good reasons to avoid certain kinds of sourcing meats. Therefore, factory farming should be avoided and that free-range organic methods of raising animals should be used instead because it is morally neutral or good. As well, even if livestock is raised in humane ways, it is morally wrong to kill and eat the animal because it will feel pain. Singer also notes that many things must be taken into account: the potential loss of happiness of vegetarians, the loss of livelihood of producers of factory-farmed products, environmental consequences, global and individual health concerns as

Animals are killed for biology lesson, drugs, food, curiosity, and cosmetic testing. Each animal used includes mice, frogs, rats, dogs, guinea pigs, monkeys fish and birds. Animals may not have rights, but that shouldn’t make it okay to kills them for human wants. They

I agree with Peter Singer’s argument that most people in affluent societies are morally required to give more of their money and resources to combating global poverty and famine than they currently do. This will be supported by the utilitarian argument, that net utility should always be maximised, by exploring his belief that this should be obligatory rather than supererogatory as well as investigating the influence of basic physical and psychological needs. I will also argue against the “Demandingness Objection”, a strong objection to Singer’s views.

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

Peter Singer’s argument is that all animals are equal and should be treated as such. He begins to build his argument by defining “equality”. Equality entails “equal consideration” for a being’s interests, with the potential for different treatment. Consider the difference in treatment between men and women in regards to abortion rights. Women have the right to get an abortion while men do not. This is not a difference in equality, but simply recognition of the fact that it could be in the interest of women to get one. Men on the other hand, have no desire or ability for this right. Singer

In the 20th century much progress has been made towards human rights and animal rights. Humans seek equality between the male and female sexes, religion, and ethnicity. On the animal rights side, philosophers such as Peter Singer in his book “Animal Liberation”, point out that animals deserve equal consideration with regard to suffering. Singer uses the term “speciesism” to describe the discrimination of non-humans based on species (1990). He argues that it is morally wrong to knowingly

Animals have been around longer than humans, therefore they were not put on this earth to serve and provide for us. Animal Experimentation and “Sport” Hunting are two main unnecessary forms of animal cruelty put upon defenseless animals. Animals feel everything that is done to them, just like if it was a person someone was experimentation on or hunting. The only difference is that they have no voice to object. People are using hunting as an excuse to keep animal population down, but if that's really the case then there are non-lethal methods that can be used instead. The demand for meat is so high now that people will inject animals with drugs to make them grow fatter, faster. Factories should be checked daily with a list of obligations they

It is ethically unacceptable to treat animals as something less than living, breathing creatures. Like humans, animals have complex nervous systems with neurons that carry information from the body to cerebrum for interpretation; therefore "[animals] feel pain and fear just as we do, and their overwhelming

I think that is quite an absurd idea. I mean animals do not have civilization. Do they even understand that they have rights assuming that they do? I suppose probably not. Besides, I do not think animals have morality, and they would not think killing other animals is wrong as probably if they’re carnivore and they don’t, they’ll starve and die.