“We are, quite literally, gambling with the future of our planet - for the sake of hamburgers” (Peter Singer, Animal Liberation). To me, this quote could be taken in so many different ways. Singer may mean that we are tampering too much with the food chain of our world, which could eventually cause complete collapse. He may even mean that we are killing innocent animals for our own benefit, but we don’t know what this could lead to. Other humans maybe? Who knows? Whatever the true meaning of this quote may be, Singer’s point is very clear and I would definitely agree with him - most of the people on this earth have a duty to become vegetarians, for moral purposes.
Peter Singer’s argument for animal equality is mainly dependent on the principle of equality. The principle of equality states that we as humans are all equal in a moral sense, meaning that we are each permitted to equal consideration of our interests. Singer also states that the principle of equality cannot only depend on specific qualities of humans (such as race), which would mean that it cannot only be applied to humans either. By this, Peter Singer means that non-human animals should also receive equal consideration of their interests, but only if they are sentient. Anything that is sentient is able to feel both pain and pleasure. In my opinion, sentience is the most important part of Singer’s entire argument because it gives clear reason to why most of the human race should become vegetarian. Singer’s argument for vegetarianism (and just his beliefs in general) is based completely on utilitarianism. He would argue that by eating meat, we do not maximize overall pleasure and actually causes unnecessary suffering. The reason that the suffering is unnecessary is that ...
... middle of paper ...
... me to kill this little rabbit, but I am going to do it anyways.” They do it simply because they need to. Humans, on the other hand, do this all the time. As humans, we not only contemplate the moral issue of eating meat, but we take it a step further. What I am talking about is that we actually make the decision to cause unnecessary suffering to animals by eating them, when we have alternative options to eat. Peter Singer would also argue that humans are generally smarter than animals so to follow in the footsteps of animals would be a bit ridiculous. We cannot look up to animals for advice and guidance when it comes to ethical decisions because we are fully capable of making these decisions on our own. It is important to remember that Peter Singer isn’t even necessarily arguing that you give up eating animals completely – just the sentient ones.
In conclusion,
.... People do not have to become vegetarians, but people should consider other meat and food as alternatives. Ultimately, if a majority of people chose organic farms and foods it would put a heavy hit on the meat production business. People will be eating healthier, and they will be doing their healthy part in the ecosystem and that will help to lower greenhouse gas emissions and greatly improve treatment of animals. The prices of organic food just need to come down dramatically for people to buy it. Methane from liquid manure, nitrous oxide from manmade fertilizers, carbon dioxide from machines are why people have put themselves and animals into a dilemma and made it into a never-ending continuous cycle.
What we do to animals in factory farms is disastrous; we are torturing animals just for a quick meal. We subject animals to a life of misery just for one dinner. What Fred does to the puppies is morally wrong and no one can dispute this. People may argue that there is a moral difference between puppies and chickens, this I agree with. But, the moral difference between dogs and pigs are almost nonexistent. Both of these animals are very smart and are capable of making rational decisions. It does not make sense why some people will choose to eat a pig, but they can’t imagine eating a dog. Both species are complex. There is a moral problem in how we obtain our meat. We should try to strive in killing animals in as humane as a way as possible. I don’t think it is plausible to ask people to stop eating meat-I would not give up eating meat. But, I do agree with Norcross when he says that we need to stop factory farming. The ways animals are killed in these places in
Food, especially meat is such a central part of human society that it cannot be ignored. Just as big minds came together in the 60’s to make a better chicken, they can come together to solve a crisis that harms every person living in this country. Jonathan Safran Foer’s book gives an important look into what goes on behind the scenes of factory farms, and offers logical solutions. However, it will take more than this, and more than just vegetarian encouragement to make any lasting changes. It will take the votes of consumers both in the supermarket and on ballots to evoke a better system. Take a look at what is on your plate next time you sit down for a meal. Did you vote well?
In his article entitled “Animal Liberation,” Peter Singer suggests that while animals do not have all of the exact same rights as humans, they do have an equal right to the consideration of their interests. This idea comes from the fact that animals are capable of suffering, and therefore have sentience which then follows that they have interests. Singer states “the limit to sentience...is the only defensible boundary of concern for interests of others” (807). By this, he means that the ability to feel is the only grounds for which rights should be assigned because all species of animals, including humans, have the ability, and therefore all animals have the right to not feel suffering and to instead feel pleasure.
Corliss, Richard. “Should We All Be Vegetarians?” Time. Time Inc., 15 Jul. 2002. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.
It is apparent that there are many philosophers that stand on both sides of the argument. One side is clearly expressing that while there may be some overlap between the human species and nonhuman species, we are not equal because of the concept of rationality, for example. However, I see Singer’s arguments as much stronger than the other philosophers. He draws on many solid points backed up by concrete evidence that is easily understandable on many points, pulling from different experiences and true events. I defend Singer’s view that nonhuman animals are equal to human beings because he points cannot be discounted, but more heavily supported the more he digs into them.
Mill would most likely take the same argumentative position, since they are both Utilitarians. Singer’s argument has three premises. First, if a being suffers, it has an interest to avoid suffering. Second, if a being has interests, we must give moral consideration to that thing. Third, both human and nonhuman animals have the capacity to suffer. The conclusion Singer comes to is that we must give equal moral consideration to both human and nonhuman animals. Does animal testing increase happiness and reduce suffering? Most often, the answer is no. So often it would be unethical. However, if there ever was a case in which it would increase happiness and reduce suffering, such as if testing on one animal could cure a disease 400 people have, that would be ethical, because Mill cares about the greatest good for the greatest number.
The proper relationship between the individual's interests and the common good is a delicate balancing act that political philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Sophocles have tried to define. For philosophers such as Socrates and Plato, the common good trumps the individual interest when those interests interfere with what they believe is right for society as a whole. For others like Aristotle and Locke, a consensus on what the common good is must be defined within the reality that individual interests exists; meaning, they cannot be completely discarded for the good of society. I believe that in a free society, where the common good to doesn't have to be forced upon its citizens, the common good should impose upon the individual's interest only as much as citizens will allow without feeling such impositions are unreasonable restrictions on their lives.
One of the reasons that vegans don't believe we should eat animals is because we don't have the right to eat them. They believe that those animals have the same exact rights that humans have. The animals feel pain and have the exact same feelings that human beings do. What these people don't realize ...
Within the guidelines of utilitarianism, Singer’s approach appears to harmonize, as he believed the goal in life should be to attain happiness and when the desirable level is reached, one should pay it forward. However, to the dismay of many, he believed that one born to pain and suffrage could not reach such pleasure therefore, had nothing to contribute to the environment and hence, such a life need not be continued and such a life furthered, would only be a strain on happiness. Singer’s judgement on moral behavior was that bringing pain into the world would only consume positive energy and could not further the benefits of happiness as, it is absent. In thinking that one’s existence should benefit environmental ethics as a whole or to those who need it most, Singer has said, “It is not enough that an environmental policy conform to the principles of some or other environmental ethic, it should conform to the correct, or best justified, one.” (p.285) Singer is also inclusive to animals within his statement as he considered animals just as equal in nature as humans. Essentially, he had a vision of animals being free from cruelties and exploitations such as factory farming. Extending happiness, to him, was meant only for people and creatures that could share it and, in accordance to his philosophy, deserved it in efforts to amplify well-being. Singer’s morally confusing ethics have added a unique wing in the developments of environmental ethics that, if anything, indulge in daring thoughts and help refine the purpose of
... middle of paper ... ... If both a human and an animal are in a life-or-death situation, should it be morally condemnable to save the human over the animal? Interestingly enough, Singer does not elucidate what forms he expects the “equal regard” for animal interests to take: he implies that we should eliminate suffering, but seems fine with killing animals humanely for food.
Vegetarians are uncomfortable with how humans treat animals. Animals are cruelly butchered to meet the high demand and taste for meat in the market. Furthermore, meat-consumers argue that meat based foods are cheaper than plant based foods. According to Christians, man was given the power to dominate over all creatures in the world. Therefore, man has the right to use animals for food (Singer and Mason, 2007). However, it is unjustified for man to treat animals as he wishes because he has the power to rule over animals. This owes to the reality that it is unclear whether man has the right to slaughter animals (haphazardly), but it is clear that humans have a duty to take care of animals. In objection, killing animals is equal to killing fellow humans because both humans and animals have a right to life. Instead of brutally slaying animals, people should consume their products, which...
Singer believes animals should have their rights considered. He is trying to point out how we should care about their interests regardless of the type of animal. The only difference between humans and an animal is that we are different species and we should have respect to one another because we are both living. Singer talks about how do we know if animals feel pain and basically says we feel pain but react differently unless you are born with no pain receptor which is dangerous. He later gives an example of a rat and rock getting kicked along the road, if you kick a rock nothing will happen because it's a rock and does not have feelings; however, kicking a rat is bad because it will suffer. This brings a good point such as how we humans kill animals for fun a...
This is a much bigger deal than people think. In fact, according to an article by Peta, How Does Eating Meat Harm the Environment, it has such an effect on the environment that the Union of Concerned Scientist list meat eaters as the second biggest environmental hazard facing the earth. The number one affect being fossil fuels produced by cars. It was also found in a report published by the Worldwatch Institute that nearly 51 percent of all greenhouse gasses are produced from animal agriculture. This is a very staggering number when a lot of research is being done to make vehicles more environmentally friendly when we could make a huge impact just by changing the way we eat. It is even more astounding that it takes the same number of fossil fuels to produce one hamburger as it takes to dive one car 20 miles (Peta How Does Eating Meat Harm the Environment). The production of this meat is also a big cost. It takes more than 80 percent of the corn we grow and more than 95 percent of oat are feed to livestock. The world’s cattle alone are feed the equal amount that would be needed to feed 8.7 billion people. That’s more than the entire world population. If we cut back on our consumption of meat we could take corn and oats that we produce and feed the world. When producing meat many of our natural resources are used. We use water, fossil fuels and top soil, and we are
...ming I will be willing to contribute in any way that I can, and becoming a vegetarian will help the environment a great deal. Becoming a vegetarian can also lead to becoming a healthier person and living a healthy lifestyle. And lastly, the way animals are killed and treated in factory farms are unethical and they should not be treated the way they are just to create a meal for the next person.Consider that the animal you are eating was a vegetarian and the meat contains all the minerals and vitamins of the plant foods it ate when you eat it. Along with fats yourbody needs in substantial amounts to stay healthy.....more on the fats later. Meat is as close to a complete meal as you can get because of this.