Singer claims that we should give the same respect to all lives of non-human animals as we give to the lives of humans. Singer also claims that animals, human and non-human, are equal. Singer defines speciesism as a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of one's own species and against those members of other species. Singer gives three claims against this claim. Singer claims that equality is based on equal consideration. Singer states that dogs aren't equal because they do not know hat voting means. For example that men and women will have similar rights but, the claim that men and women have a right to an abortion is just as coherent as dogs having the right to vote. Singer claims equality is also a "moral" idea not a factual one. For example, Singer goes through the reasons why racism and sexism is wrong. The purpose of this claim is that equality does not depend on intelligence, moral capacity, physical strength, or similar matters of fact. Singer claims that the capacity for suffering is a prerequisite for rights. For example, it's the question of suffering. Singer reasons why the differences between healthy and disabled humans can be wider than healthy humans and certain non-human animals.
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
Animals deserve rights because just like humans, they feel excruciating pain, suffer and have feelings. One would argue that animals don’t experience emotions? But the answer is of course they do. It is emotions that allow animals to display various behavior patterns. According to the theory of utilitarianism, all sentient beings should be given consideration in the society and this includes both animals and humans. Also, animals cannot speak for themselves and for this reason they should be treated equally, protected and given the same respect as human beings. Peter singer’s approach also supports the argument on equal consideration in that animals deserve the same respect as human beings but just in a different view. In today’s society humans exploit animals for milk, meat, fur, scientific experimentation etc. and animals are constantly injured or killed. Their pain and sufferings should be taken into consideration, as this unjust treatment is morally unacceptable. Similarly speciesism is an…
- 476 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
In one of Peter Singer’s arguments defending animals rights he counter argues against Thomas Taylor a philosopher who wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes which was a counterargument against Mary Wollstonecraft (Singer, 1). In Singer’s reply to Taylor he says that one might reply by saying the case for equality between men and women cannot be given to non-human animals (Singer, 2). To summarize this argument, Singer says that women are just as intelligent and capable of voting as men so they are extended this right, while dogs are not mentally capable of recognizing and understanding the significance of voting so they are not given this right (Singer, 2). He then goes onto say that men and women resemble each other closely therefore…
- 268 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
Baxter’s conclusion is that the needs of man should dictate the state of nature. (People or Penguins: The Case for Optimal Pollution, William F. Baxter, 1974. Columbia University Press, New York. Page 383 All page citations below are from this source)…
- 602 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
The first premise of his argument was that all human and non-human animals possess equal inherent value because they are all individuals experiencing life. His second premise is that possessing inherent value demands that these individuals have rights that should not be violated by others. The final premise of his argument is that any individual with rights must be treated equally and with respect. In this paper, I objected to his third premise by arguing that we humans should not interact with animals at all because we are not able to distinguish their perception of equality and…
- 990 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
Justin Le Ms. Jackson ERWC English 28 October 2014 Animal Bill of Rights Despite our genetic makeup and ability, each living organism still obtains the ability to partake in the vast contribution towards this world. We as humans should be proactive in our role of establishing and maintaining a fine balance of life. A prominent responsibility we possess is to regard all living beings as equals.…
- 518 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
The church believes that every human life is a person with absolute and equal value, but Peter Singer’s use of speciesism and moral status to define personhood; as an individual with a substantial amount of cognitive ability, is a greater argument when taken into account our secular society with human and non-human…
- 53 Words
- 1 Page
Satisfactory Essays -
This entry focuses mainly on the chemical DDT, which is over consumed on various vegetation, however, the overall idea is regarding our environment and how human actions are abolishing it, although it may be unintentional. To be more specific, the central idea consists of the environmental actions that are backfiring on our population in a negative way. Furthermore, in my opinion, Rachel Carson desires to spread awareness about the harmful deeds that are destroying our environment and our society’s health.…
- 221 Words
- 1 Page
Satisfactory Essays -
Palmer isn't a misanthrope. He isn't out for the destruction of the human species. His writing strategies, such as comparisons, distortion of the opposition, and smokescreening the obvious issue at hand, which is the destruction of the ecosystem, indeed tell the reader of…
- 431 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
An Argumentative essay that looks at and breaks down the philosophical difference between Tom Regan’s position on Animal rights and, Peter Singer’s position on Animal liberation as a basis for better treatment of animals.…
- 1157 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
A. Singer reflects his statements in Animal Liberation “The basic principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration.”…
- 779 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
Singer argues that there is no moral justification for denying moral consideration to animals. Can you think of a reason why our moral consideration should include all humans regardless of their level of cognitive ability, yet denied to non-human animals simply because they have lower levels of cognitive abilities (though still higher in some cases than those of human infants and some mentally disabled humans)? What response might he have to your way of drawing the line between the types of beings that should get moral consideration and those that should not?…
- 663 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
It gives basic moral significance to things that are able to experience pain and pleasure. Human’s and non humans can most certainly experience pain and pleasure therefore we all deserve equality. Singer argues that we have a direct duty to animals, to include their interest in our moral reasoning. Whether or not animals can author treatises on mathematics they like us feel pain and we therefore have an obligation not to cause them needless suffering. Singer denounces all forms of what he calls “speciesism” whereby human beings believe they can exploit animals merely because they do not belong to the species homo sapiens. Just because animals aren’t homo sapiens doesn’t mean they are not equal. They have hearts, they pump blood, they breathe and they create life, these are all qualities us humans…
- 759 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
Singer argues that the basic principle of equality doesn’t mean that we have to treat all groups of beings the exact same way or afford them the same rights. He uses the example of women and men being treated equally but not giving men the right to have an abortion because they don’t need that right. He argues that we should give equal consideration to all beings and that equality shouldn’t depend on moral capacity, intelligence, or physical traits. These factual differences shouldn’t determine how someone is treated. He says that human’s should not discriminate against other humans with a lower degree of intelligence and therefore should not discriminate against nonhuman animals. Lastly, he argues that when deciding whether or not we…
- 290 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
Singer's Utilitarianism does give some sense of moral equality between humans and animals. He felt that animals have identical interests that are equally morally important as humans and that they must be treated with equal concern. Singer says: "Speciesism. . . the belief that we are entitled to treat members of other species in a way in which it would be wrong to treat members of our own…
- 1603 Words
- 7 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
It is understood that this may be an attempt to encourage readers that may not believe in the concept of animals having rights to look at a bigger picture in relation to this topic and find connections. However, the idea of including aliens as a means of supporting her argument regarding animals is not something that the group was able to connect with as aliens are not considered a part of our society or law. The criticism that Sarah and Katie have regarding this argument is that Midgley discusses how using intelligence is not a viable way to determine if something is or is not a person, but feels that measuring the emotional complexity of the non-human is just as, if not more, challenging to measure accurately. Perhaps in some species, their emotional capabilities are not known to human beings because the animal reflects them in a way that we do not understand. While there is appreciation for the thought that emotions should be included as criteria in determining if something is or is not a person, Midgley should provide some information pertaining to the method in which this information can be…
- 1370 Words
- 6 Pages
Good Essays