In “Animal Liberation” Singer compares the past acts of liberation to animal liberation and how they are not equal. Peter Singer compares women’s rights and black rights to animal rights. Some in which most people think have no comparison at all. Singer expresses how people may not think highly of animal rights because they are not humans. Singer expressed how other sociologist and psychologist view this to be the same way. I mean why not? We test most human things on animals. Singer introduces betham’s view on this aspect and he pretty much views the situation that that species does not feel pain as humans do. He feels that they cannot express themselves as humans would so why should we care for them. Singer believes that we privileged humans because that is what we know and what we are comfortable with. Many humans are more biased to our species then others. So many humans would not take the right to animals fairly. We do many things to animals that are not fair such as: animal testing, using their skin or furs for clothes, and just eating them overall. Singer believes that this is not fair because animals cannot speak for themselves and defend their feelings. With this being known who is it to defend them in this situation? This situation is unfortunate for them just because they cannot voice how they feel. The difference between the liberation acts and situations is that it is actually humans voicing their opinion on how they feel as individual’s and as people overall. Most human’s world considers the human’s feelings rather than an animal’s feelings simply because they can sympathize with humans who can tell an animal’s pain because animals can’t talk. Animals have no source of communication to humans in a literal sense only learned responses can be judged by animal’s feelings. Next Peter singer refers to “speciesism” as taking up for your own species, or being prejudice against other species. This means that humans value their own...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document