Rhetorical Analysis

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

However, if the animals were treated well and were killed painlessly, that would not be morally wrong because, in this case, eating meat is only wrong when the animals are not treated as well as they could be. Singer believes that every sentient being should receive equal consideration, but he is aware that humans and non-human animals do not deserve the same rights because different beings have different interests (Singer 149). An example Singer gives is that it would not be wrong to deny dogs the right to vote because dogs are incapable of understanding the significance of voting, so they cannot have the right to vote, but it would be wrong to deny a dog’s interest in not suffering since dogs have a strong interest in avoiding pain (Singer 149).

I am going to argue in support of Peter Singer’s claims against speciesism. It is right to claim that human suffering and animal suffering should be given equal considerations. Both humans and nonhuman species suffer both physically and emotionally and both deserve equal considerations on the basis of morality.

Jeremy Bentham states “The question is not, can they reason? nor, can they talk? but can they suffer?” Vicki Hearne, animal trainer and author of What’s Wrong with Animal Rights, and Peter Singer, author of The Animal Liberation Movement, relate humans to other living beings. Although, both Hearne and Singer share some similarities towards animal rights their perspective towards animal suffering differ in definitions and qualities of suffering. Hearne and Singer link animal suffering to human connection with other living beings.

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.

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.

Singer argues that the uncomplicated matter that animals have the capability to experience discomfort and joy puts them on an equal moral footing with human beings. Singer also condemns "speciesism," a concept like racism in which humans consider that they are authorized to use other creatures simply because they are members of a different species just in the way humans have exploited one another on the basis of race or gender or other perceived differences. Animals from factory farms have no legal protection from cruelty that. If the same acts were inflicted on dogs or cats it would be illegal. This only proves the discrimination there is when it comes to animal rights. Species are not considered to have equal values. Humans appreciate animals

According to Singer’s argument choosing to ignore the interests of other species is like discriminating people based on race and sex, this attitude towards animals is what he calls speciesism. Singer claims that animal suffering should be given equal consideration as human suffering. In his arguments, he highlights that animal and human pain are on similar levels; hence animal suffering deserves equal respect. Animals do not have the ability to reason or communicate their interests. Nevertheless, according to Singer we cannot discriminate animals based on the skills they possess. They might

Humans use animals on a regular basis for food and medical experiments. I agree with Singer, that the pain and suffering of animals in factory farms and

Singer is convinced that animals’ suffering outweighs humans’ pleasure from using them. He suggests that animals have similar interests to human such as to avoid pain or suffering and that we should respect it. Thus, we should be vegetarians in order to liberate animals from suffering that human beings bring to them when exploiting.

Singer claims to be one of the few philosophers, along with Jeremy Bentham, that realizes that this principle can be applied to human and non-human animals alike, and justifies this through his and Bentham’s understanding that the “capacity for suffering [is] the vital characteristic that entitles a being to equal consideration”; Bentham states that the question that should be asked “is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?” Singer argues that because humans and nonhuman animals both have the ability to suffer, it is just as wrong to give preference to human interests over the interests of animals, as it is to give preference to the interests of White people over the interests of Black

Singer compares discrimination between humans to the moral injustice that humans have shown animals. Singer examines the idea of blacks and women command equality because they have the same ability to be leaders, to rationalize, the same intellect as whites and males. However, animals do not have the same ability to compete for leadership with humans. Since humans and animals do not have same intelligence and capabilities, one could infer animals should be treated less humane, according to the definition of justice. Justice requires that one must treat their equals equally, and since animals are not equal to humans in any moral aspect, then we can philosophically consider that the immoral treatment between humans and animals is not injustice. Thus, the argument between moral equality and factual arises. Moral equality exists because every human has

He says that intelligence has nothing to do with everyone's rights. Instead of mistreating others, we should think carefully about the suffering of others. Singer states that we should act according to the moral concept of “equal consideration” a concept that states that one side should take into account the interest of the other before taking any action that can harm the interest of the other side, same interests must be treated equally on both sides. The important interest that human and animals share is avoid suffering, neither of them want to experience suffering. The best evidence that animals can suffer is the Theory of Darwin in which all species come from a common ancestor as a tree where all species branch out from a common ancestor. By mentioning that theory, we have to remember that we have some similarities like we all have a central nervous system that triggers the levels of pain, enjoyment, emotions, etc. For example, some of us have undergone the experience of having a dog which is the best friend of humans. The majority of people have observed the different emotions of dogs like sadness and happiness like when you arrive home, they can smell you or hear you from anywhere and there we can notice their excitement to see you again. Other case would be when their human friend dies, they feel this huge sadness and some of them even grasp this idea of waiting for their friends to arrive again to home, with the

Both essays have moral argument that Animals has the same rights and equal to humans. As human we should give equal privileges to animals and fight for their rights. Peter Singer’s argument is ” that the pain and pleasure of animals as well as that of humans must be included in utilitarian calculations” (pg. 504) the author used utilitarian to show humans to pay attention rights of other living such animals.

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