Animal Rights, Animal Wrongs, And The Animal Liberation Movement By Peter Singer

More than a million different kinds of animals inhabit the earth. The exact number is not known, for new kinds are continually being discovered. They live in the seas, from the surfaces down to the black depths where no ray of sunlight penetrates. Animals can be domesticated or left in the wild where they truly belong. However, as time passed by, nowadays, animals are endlessly being exploited and fought for around the globe. Different opinions from different countries and races have divided to defend to defend their views and make a stand. This issue about the animals’ welfare should be taken more seriously until we find the right answers.

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 first point of utilitarianism is important for readers to understand because upon completion of reading this work, or any work related to animals deserving equal considerations in terms of suffering, comes a question of ethics and a decision. Singer expresses the similarities between how humans treated one another and their progressions over time throughout Animal Liberation with good reasons. The

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.

Today, the discussions about the protection of the animal’s rights have received the attention of many people, many countries in the world. A lot of actions have been made by animal right activists to influence the world. Alex Epstein and Yaron Book, both authors of the “The Evil of Animal ‘Right’,” argue animal right activists use too much violence on their action, which is considered going against the law. Then, the authors give a lot of evidence to prove testing animals are extinct, but using animals for testing gives us new vaccines which make our lives better. Without animals for testing, how can scientists find out the vaccine for diseases? Animal right groups are making many effects to Huntingdon Life Sciences.

The Vancouver Aquarium uses dolphins and belugas to provide entertainment and utilizes the profit gained, to aid them in research. In The Case for Animal Rights, Tom Regan’s moral principles state that there should be total abolition of the use of animals in science as well as for entertainment purposes (337). Moreover, he claims that humans and animals have equal values and rights. Based on this principle, I argue that the practices of the Vancouver Aquarium of using belugas and dolphins for scientific and entertainment purposes is immoral and thus unjustified.

Killing Animals Kills In Peter Singer’s, Animal Liberation, he argues on what he defines as speciesism. Speciesism is like racism, where it is the mistreatment of another species. The main idea of this piece is how we treat the animals we seem to co-exist with as a nation.

INSERT HOOK The topic of animal liberation is not typically an object of discussion. Most likely because people don’t understand what animals need to be liberated from. Peter Singer is a utilitarian philosopher. Peter Singer’s “Animal Liberation” offers a fascinating view on how humans perceive themselves in comparison to animals. The article examines the tyranny of humans over animals (non-humans). Singer believes humans need to expand their moral horizons so that the mistreatment of animals is a thing of the past and is seen as intolerable. Throughout his essay he states claims supporting his thesis and elaborates on them to hopefully get his audience to see where he is coming from. INSERT BETTER THESIS?

Kailee Candia Do Animals Have Rights? With a rise of cruelty free products and plant based diets, we ask the questions should animals have rights? In “ The Case for Animals Rights,” by Tom Regan in which he writes on his beliefs for animal rights. According to Regan the animal rights movement is committed to,” total elimination of: use of animals in scientific experiments commercial animal agriculture, commercial & sport hunting & trapping.” Three views about our treatment of animals that Regan will rejet are, Indirect duty view, Cruelty-kindness view, and Utilitarian view (Singer).

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

Humans have used animals like dogs, cats and horses as companions to help guide us and teach valuable lessons about love and friendship. However, we have also used other animals as sources of food and nourishment when humans hunted and farmed. The way in which we treat animals is a big factor in whether or not they, too, deserve the same rights to be treated as we do. The rights that they do deserve are to live their lives without going through pain and to be able to live their lives without being subordinated to humans; free and without discrimination. Animals under human care can be exploited to endure tasks that are inhumane and could be raised in an environment that is full of disease with lack of food and secure attachment from a supportive figure. By living in areas like crowded cages or barns shows that humans have taken no initiative to provide safe and humane facilities in which these animals are to be kept. If something like this is not acceptable to people of society as human beings, then it should not be accepted by society with animals. Due to the fact that they have no way of speaking with humans about their own philosophy of life, this does not mean that we are to disregard all forms of communication or "voice" that they can show from their actions. Time and time again, humans are brought about to the public for mistreatment of animals and are then faced with abuse in court. Although, there still need to be better restrictions on what people

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,

Doesn’t it kill you to see a movie and see an animal get killed or just hurt in it? Good thing that’s all special effects. Back in the day, around 1966, movies didn’t always use special effects. Khartoum, a movie based on a holy war in the Sudan desert, directed by Basil Dearden and Eliot Elisofon, used horses a great deal, but did not use the special effects in order to not hurt the animals. Many horses died in the making of this movie, as well as others, even including a major hit, Ben-Hur. Today, there are many activist groups that fight for and about the unfair treatment and protection for animals in everyday life. The People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is one of these groups. PETA was founded in

Is it ethical for animals to have the same rights as humans? During this paper I will present the views of both sides. I will try my best to give the reader a chance to come to there own unbiased conclusion. I will talk about the key areas of animal ethics. I will present the facts and reasoning behind the arguments over Animal cruelty, testing, hunting, and improper housing. My conclusion will hopefully bring us closer to answering many of the question surrounding “Animal Rights and Ethics”.