Show More"In "All Animals Are Equal," Singer argues for the equality of all animals, on the basis of an argument by analogy with various civil rights movements, on the part of human beings. How does this argument go exactly, and what is Singer's precise conclusion? Is his argument successful? Why or why not? If you think it is successful, raise a residual potentially damaging objection, and respond on Singer's behalf (i.e., as a proponent of the position). And if not, how far does the argument go and/or how might it be improved? What has Singer taught us here, if anything?"
Singer makes a three-part argument for why “All Animals Are Equal”, or at the very least should be granted equal consideration. Firstly, he argues that, assuming all humans…show more content…
The comparison Singer draws here is granting men the right to abortion – biologically irrelevant. “Recognizing this obvious fact… is no barrier to the case for extending the basic principle of equality to nonhuman animals”.
Premise 1: “If the demand for equality were based on the actual equality of all human beings, we would have to stop demanding equality… Equality is a moral ideal, not a simple assertion of fact.”
This is a premise that seems intuitively true and unproblematic. Singer argues for this claim by simply enumerating the various qualities it is possible for humans to have, and pointing out that for every quality possessed by one particular group, another group is excluded by it. Some examples he gives are “intelligence, moral capacity [and] physical strength”. However, there are a few responses that can be made to this claim.
Firstly, the determination of “actual equality” that Singer utilizes seems overly simplistic and based on a single characteristic. While it is true that no one characteristic – except a common humanity – is shared by all humans, it does not preclude the fact that there could be some combination of characteristics that are shared by the majority of the population. Perhaps we do award moral consideration to individuals simply on the basis that they belong to the human race. While this may be arbitrary, there seems to be no justification
In order to understand Peter Singer’s article “All Animals Are Equal”, one has to look at his viewpoint and perspective. Singer is a utilitarian, which is someone who believes that best outcome is something that causes that greatest amount of pleasure (or the least amount of pain) for the greatest number of people. However, in this definition the word ‘people’ is used, as to mean only humans. This is the point that Singer is trying to argue. Who is to say that animals don’t feel pain or experience happiness? Singer believes in the equal consideration of interests, and that we should extend this basic principle to other species.
In Singer’s first point on extending equal consideration, he poses the question, if a lesser intelligence cannot be used to morally discriminate against humans, then how can it be used to discriminate against animals? Singer explains that he’s not saying both groups should be treated exactly the same, because there are differences between species, therefore they should have different rights. Singer states, “The interests of every being affected by an action are to be taken into account and given the same weight as the like interests of any other being” (LaFollette, 110). For a being to have interests, they must have the capability to enjoy life and suffer. He points out that any animal would have an interest in not being tormented, so it does not suffer. We could be sure that animals feel pain based on the fact that they show the same signs used by humans that show they feel pain. For example, if a person would to step on a dog’s tail he might bark, the same as if a human had their hand slammed in the door they would yell.
Singer brings up the issue of sexism and racism. No matter how we may try to look at it, not all humans are equal. He argues, “…a person’s sex is no guide to his or her abilities, and this is why it is unjustifiable to discriminate on the basis of sex” (LaFollette, 109), and the same goes for racism – basing a person’s abilities based on the color of their skin is just as absurd. Racism and sexism are both morally wrong, therefore so is speciesism.
Another point the Singer brings up is how humans let their own interests take priority over other species. The fact that we eat animals shows that we think of them as nothing more than a “means to our ends”. This is true because there are other, more nutritional, ways to meet our needs. By doing this we cause additional suffering for animals. Moreover, the cruel behavior that we put these animals through before they are killed for us to eat. Yet another type of discrimination we perform on these animals is experimentation to see the affects of substances and if they are safe on humans. Basically, animal experimentation and consumption is wrong except if we were willing to perform the same acts on a human with similar capabilities.
Singer reasons that, “a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month” (LaFollette, 110). He argues that if we cannot experiment on humans with severe brain damage or defective infants, then we should not experiment on animals. Furthermore, killing animals for food would be the same as killing these humans for food. Singer is saying that if instead of treating these defective infants that don’t stand a chance, we should use them to test medical treatments, which in the end is the greater good for more people.
The last aspect of speciesism that Singer talks about is philosophers trying to draw a distinct, clear line between the equality of humans and animals. However, in order to include all humans it would have to be a broad generalized definition, which could not go without including some animals also. Though an infant may not have superior characteristics to that of a dog, doesn’t mean that we can research on the infant; though it is looked at as quite all right to do research on a dog.
Singer presents a sound argument on the rights of animals. As I have pointed out, all of his premises are true, and well backed up. For the most part I agree with his argument, except for the point he made on experimenting with infants or disabled humans. Though he did present his point well and backed it up, that just seemed to be the most controversial statement. I can understand his point of view of experimenting on a perfectly healthy animal who can feel pain, so why not a person who doesn’t have much of a future ahead, however I don’t agree with it. It comes down to quality of life. It might work as a hypothetical situation about some unknown infant, but what family would actually give up their child for experimentation? Or even a loved one who may be disabled? There is an emotional standpoint that I think Singer needs to address.
Furthermore, I agree that since there are other means of getting the nutrition that we need, people should make an effort to eat less meat. Nonetheless, people will continue to eat meat due to the fact that they ignorant as to what exactly the animals go through before they are killed for us to eat. Personally, I believe that that is how people like it. Then that way they don’t have to feel guilty every time they pick up a hamburger, and they can just go on enjoying it. This is a controversial topic, and Singer proved his point that animals should be extended the equality of consideration that a person shows his own species.
LaFollette, Hugh. Ethics in Practice. Published 1997. Copyright 1997, 2002.
“Singer’s Utilitarian Animal Rights”. April 20, 2004.