Utilitarian Vs Singer

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

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.

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

Eating animals is normal for any carnivore, but abuse to these animals is unacceptable. There are religions and traditions when it comes to eating and killing animals, usually to be viewed sacred and not like they are nothing. Humans have morals and traditions that separate barriers with farm animals and pets.

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 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.

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 Peter Singer’s article “All Animals are Equal,” Singer advocates for the basic principle of equality to be extended to animals. By the basic principle of equality, he means that all beings should receive equal consideration in relation to experiencing pain and pleasure.

     Conversely, there exist equally as many challenges to raise had the ethicist taken the alternate position that animals have equal value and accordingly that their pleasure is impermissibly infringed upon when they are killed for human interest. Arguments could be presented for a bevy of actions taken on a daily basis by society as a whole. One might address the fact that using animal testing for the advancement of medicine has benefits that outweigh the pains. Similarly, while the development of land effectively kills the previously animal inhabitants, it is an accepted result that society has displayed it is willing to disregard. In each of these cases, the majority of society condones such behavior, as evidenced by their

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

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 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.