Equal Rights In Peter Singer's All Animals Are Equal

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.

Equality and fairness should be two desirable qualities that go hand in hand. The essay “All Animals Are Equal,” Peter Singer takes the concept that we should extend the fundamental principles that are handed to humans to other species. Every person should have equality; I believe that this is true and we should continue this courtesy outside the realms of humankind, animals. I agree with Singer’s point that humans and animals should be treated with the same amount of respect. As Singer points out in his argument, having equality and fairness are two separate concepts. This is true because things that make us equal are things that are on a metaphysical level.

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.

The other half of Singer’s notion that our society is speciesist rests on how humans treat animals to produce food. “Factory farming” techniques cause “animals [to] lead miserable lives from birth to slaughter” (Singer, Animal Liberation, p.

Singer starts the article by challenging the reader's idea of the last form of discrimination; too many the last form of discrimination was sex-based but to Singer that is not the case. He believes people false consciously accept sexism as the last form of discrimination because there are no other groups of women that have advocated for rights, but people fail to realize oppression and discrimination go unnoticed until the group being mistreated points out the mistreatment. People look past the mistreatment of animals because animals cannot advocate for their rights. He refers to the discrimination against animals as speciesism; speciesism is the innate superiority of a species (homo sapiens) to another species without a solid foundation other than self-interest. Just like a racist places the self-interest of members of their own race superior to members of another race, a speciesist places the self-interest of members of their own species superior to another species. He continues by saying people are often confused when talking about animal rights; are we supposed to give animals the right to vote? He explains this concern by bringing up a woman’s right to an abortion. Woman have the right to an abortion

Peter Singer, a moral philosopher, is most famous for his book, Animal Liberation. Published in 1975, the book is considered to be highly influential in the modern movement for animal rights. His theories debunking the unjust practices of privileging humans over animals are thought provoking and extremely popular among animal liberation activists. Although I believe Singer provides many convincing arguments for the liberation of animals and a plausible method of equal treatment, there is a notable flaw in his theory that I will work to explain in the following paragraphs. To fully grasp the flaws in Singer’s ethical theory for animal liberation, it is important to first gain an understanding of it.

International Baccalaureate Diploma Program Internationella Engelska Gymnasiet Extended Essay Philosophy An analysis of Peter Singer’s utilitarian argument on animal rights with focus on Animal Liberation Fanuel Ande Word Count: Supervisor: Joseph Hemingway Date: Table of Content: Introduction: Speciesism is a term coined in 1970 by animal rights activist and psychologist, Richard D. Ryder. The term would later be popularised by Australian philosopher, Peter Singer in his book: Animal Liberation (1975).

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 idea of extending equal consideration to animals comes from the fact that non-human animals are sentient, scientifically proven by

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 Singer’s discussion in All Animals are Equal, his argument is based on the notion that we should “extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of us recognize should be extended to all members of our own species.” Singer explores the complex morality of scientific testing on animals through the following premises: We should prefer to use animals rather than adult humans for scientific experiments. If humans were kidnapped at random from public parks, they would experience large amounts of stress, anxiety and suffering when entering parks.

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

This argument: that rational beings must be considered ends in themselves, was the lifeblood of the movements of the 1970s that sought to bring oppressed groups under the umbrella of equal moral consideration. These prolonged and often violent debates revolved around demands for equality through which oppressed groups could attain their liberation. As such it is not surprising that the movement for animal liberation stems from these concerns. In fact, they are explicitly allied with them. Peter Singer’s seminal text Animal liberation is deliberately called so to evoke memories of the fortitude and determination of these earlier movements for human liberation. Singer emphasises rationality and self-consciousness of some animals as evidence

In regards to animals, the issue of rights and whether they exist becomes a touchy subject. In the essay, “Nonhuman Animal Rights: Sorely Neglected,” author Tom Regan asserts that animals have rights based upon inherent value of experiencing subjects of a life. Regan’s argument will first be expressed, later explained, and evaluated in further detail. Lastly, that fact that Regan thinks rights are harbored under the circumstance of being an experiencing subject of a life will also be discussed in terms of the incapacitated, etc.