Essay about Why Similarity Doesn't Mean Equality

Speciesism, as defined by Peter Singer, “is a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species” (Singer, Animal Liberation, p. 6). The rationale for the preferential treatment encapsulated in this definition is simply the fact that those receiving the preferred treatment belong to the same species, and not on the basis of any grounds of higher intelligence or other attributes.

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

Kwame Anthony Appiah's article “Racisms”, claims racism to be a view of racialism which are the “heritable characteristics, possessed by the members of our species, that allow us to divide them into smaller sets of races… these races share certain traits…” (Appiah). Appiah argues that humans need a definition of

begins this writing from when she was eleven years old. Her mom and Granny were very

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.

Richard Rodriguez and Amy Tan are two bilingual writers. Rodriguez comes from a Latin background where both his parents speak Spanish. Tan is a child of Chinese parents. Though they share some of the same situations; each has a different way of portraying it. This gives the readers two different aspects of being bilingual. Rodriguez told his story in Aria: a Memoir of a Bilingual Childhood. Tan told hers in Mother Tongue. In spite of the fact that they both wrote about their experiences of being bilingual, they told their stories were for very different reasons.

     The story The Sniper takes place during the civil war in Dublin, where a single sniper waits on a roof top to eliminate any threat from the oposing forces. This story is very tense right from the begining as soon as he noticed the enemys watching him and a bullet comes close to hitting him. This story's opening is one that catches your attention and gets you really focussed on the story. The Most Dangerous Game on the other hand starts out with a reputed hunter falls off the yacht he was on and ends up on an unfamiliar island. In which he finds General Zaroff only then does the good part of the story begin, yes the start of this story was a bit

The question that seems to be an ongoing topic of discussions is whether or not biological differences has any scientific validity when relating to race. The concept of race was established over the years based on physical features and variations of skin tone. These variations stem from environmental conditions causing slight variations in our genome. The essence of Homo sapiens is the same with slight variations in the DNA strands know as alleles. These variations are what cause physical differences that make up what we have defined over the years classified as different races. The variations have not evolved enough to prevent reproduction amongst the races.

The act of being habitually and carefully neat and clean can make for an interesting topic in a comparison and contrast essay. Dave Barry compares the differences of how women and men clean in his compare and contrast essay, Batting Clean- Up and Striking out. In Suzanne Britt's compare and contrast essay, Neat People vs. Sloppy People she compares the differences of personalities between Sloppy people and neat people. Both essays compare cleanliness in one way or another however they both have differences regarding their use of humor, examples, and points made in their thesis.

Speciesism is a prejudice for or against a certain species. It is the belief that all and only human beings have moral status. Peter Singer, in “All Animals are Equal”, points out that people are contradicting themselves when they make the argument that non-human animals do not deserve the same rights as humans just because animals do not have the same intellectual abilities as us. Singer points out that humans come with different moral capacities and intellectual abilities, such as humans with irreparable brain damage and infant humans, so if people were to argue that animals don’t deserve the same equality as humans because they are basing it on actual equality, then humans who lack certain abilities and characteristics would also not deserve the same equality.

You have a valid point about the unrealistic nature of achieving equality among all species similar to Rachels and Singer’s ideal against speciesism. There is no dispute that humans are the superior beings due to the fact that we are about to critically think, reason and advance as a species. If we are to achieve equality in species, we would have to regress back in time to the period of the Homo erectus. It is undeniable that we have evolved Homo sapiens that we are and will continue to progress with time. What I gather from Singer’s speciesism is that we essentially need to consider the best interest of other species when it comes to reasonable and humane conduct. As humans, we should not inflict pain or harm to one another as well

A clear comparison of the prejudice between speciesism and racism is presented through contemporary American philosopher Carl Cohen. Cohen is one academic who calls himself a proud speciesist. Cohen has a somewhat Darwinian approach to speciesism, arguing that every species on the planet is struggling and fighting to claw their way to the top, that this is how it should be and this is how it is. Each species should only be concerned about looking after itself, and due to humans currently being at the top, this shows we are the strongest of the species and can do whatever we please with those below us. This argument from Cohen is the exact one which slave owners used to rationalise and justify the domination over indigenous people and Africans. Cohens given defence of speciesism directly links and compares with the prejudice of racism from the slave trade, a prejudice all are disgusted with, and so presents how the prejudice of speciesism is definitely comparable to racism.

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

The problem with speciesism is that animals cannot speak for themselves unlike racism and sexism making it more of an issue than either of these as these animals cannot stand up for themselves. For example a man was not given a job even though he had all the proper qualifications, and when asked why he was not given the job they said because of the color of his skin. This racial

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