Peter Singer's Views on the Killing of Animals

1301 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Discussion of the case for animal rights

Is the killing of animals wrong? This is an issue that is currently being argued. In the world there are people who kill animals to eat them while there are others that feel that it is inhumane to kill defenseless animals. There are many factors over which animals are killed. For example, animals that are suffering due to an illness, animals that have shown to be dangerous around us, for food, and to maintain the animal’s population balanced. Some people have argued that killing animals for food is not the only way to feed ourselves, since we produce vegetation. These people think that animals should have the same rights as humans. People feel this way because they feel that animals feel everything that we feel, such as pain, loss, and other things. Peter Singer seems to agree with these people. He thinks animals are aware of their feelings and what is happening to them.
Singer feels that there should be some equality between humans and animals. He says that every being has the ability to suffer which is what makes hurting animals wrong. Singer says,
If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that the suffering be counted equally with the like suffering – in so far as rough comparisons can be made – of any other being. If a being is not capable of suffering, or of experiencing enjoyment or happiness, there is nothing to be taken into account. This is why the limit of sentience (using the term as convenient, if not strictly accurate, shorthand for the capacity to suffer or experience enjoyment or happiness) is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interests of others...

... middle of paper ...

... near as bad as the pain of a human. To which he says that simply because they do not talk, it does not change the fact that they do not react the exact same way a human would. People say that animals are incapable of having a mind as powerful as humans because they do not have knowledge or memory as we do, therefore they do not anticipate or agonize over things that could happen in the future. Thus, he then compares an animal to a person with a mental disability. Which he states that most humans would not think it is right for scientists to experiment on humans even though they are basically saying that mental capability defines whether a person suffers or not. Lastly, even though killing for food if necessary for survival is not wrong, it does not make it right either. He thinks that simply because something is natural it does not mean that it is justifiable.

Show More
Related

  • The Case for Animal Rights

    850 Words  | 2 Pages

    In conclusion, I agree with Tom Regan’s perspective of the rights view, as it explores the concept of equality, and the concept of rightful treatment of animals and humans. If a being is capable of living, and experiencing life, then they are more than likely capable of feeling pleasure and pain, except in a few instances. If humans are still treated in a respectable and right way even if some cannot vote, or think for themselves, then it is only fair that animals who also lack in some of these abilities be treated as equals. As Regan puts it, “pain is pain, wherever it occurs” (1989).

    Read More

  • Jeremy Rifkin A Change Of Heart About Animals Analysis

    1133 Words  | 3 Pages

    He discusses "animals subjected every year to agonizing research center experiments"(Rifkin) and "raised under the most heartless conditions." He additionally cites that animals are "for butcher and human utilization." These words, words like subjected, coldhearted, and butcher have staggeringly negative meanings and infer thoughts of ruthlessness and viciousness. On the off chance that we take after Rifkin 's reasoning, and animals resemble individuals, and we butcher (for eating no less) and place needles in their eyes in a lab- - that is essentially unsatisfactory. This is the thing that Rifkin need us to get it. For Rifkin, this is the present circumstance however it doesn 't need to be. On the off chance that people comprehend that animals are particularly similar to us, we will need them to be treated with the same admiration and poise. Right now, we are not doing this. However, we can.

    Read More

  • Summary Of A Change Of Heart About Animals By Jeremy Rifkin

    385 Words  | 1 Pages

    In the article you published called “A Change of Heart about Animals,” Jeremy Rifkin states “Many of our fellow creatures are more like us than we had ever imagined.”. I agree and believe society should be more involved into the way we do things that involves animals. We need to be more aware about the animals and that they have feelings and emotions too and we should not be taking advantage of that. Rifkin stated a lot of good points and arguments. I honestly do not agree we should end all animals deaths, but I do believe there should be an awareness against animal cruelty.

    Read More

  • Do Animals Have Moral Standing Analysis

    735 Words  | 2 Pages

    As I mentioned, I disagree with Carruthers reasoning. First and foremost, I think he contradicts himself. He says that animals are capable of suffering and feeling pain and emotions at a conscious level. So if they are capable of that, just as humans are, then why are they not considered rational agents with moral standing? They may be different from us in many ways, but if you break it down at a really basic level there are similarities. [Try to explain these similarities if

    Read More

  • Critical Analysis Of Peter Singer's Speciesism And Moral Status

    736 Words  | 2 Pages

    Men have thought themselves to be the superior species for a long time, but Peter Singer brings a new perspective on the topic in his essay entitled Speciesism and Moral Status. Singer’s new way of thinking of it states that determining morals status requires the comparison between the cognitive abilities of humans and nonhumans. The main points he focusses on in his essay are cognitive capacities between animals and humans with severe mental retardation, religion affecting human’s beliefs of superiority, and finally the ability to suffer and how similar humans and nonhumans are.

    Read More

  • Singer's Argument Against Vegetarianism

    699 Words  | 2 Pages

    I’m an individual of Irish descent who lives in Wisconsin, so there is nothing refutable about the impact that meat and animal byproducts such as milk and eggs has had on my upbringing and daily diet (not forgetting potatoes of course). However, my reasoning for eating these food items isn’t because of necessity based on a dietary need or market constraint. I eat these items because I’m a young male athlete who requires a ridiculous caloric intake and these are the food items that I grew up purchasing, preparing and consuming. The scenarios in which I eat meat now occur on a sporadic basis depending on current costs, meat sources and diet, but are greatly influenced by the food culture I grew up with not by whether it is permissible or not.

    Read More

  • Peter Singer, And Tom Regan, Peter Singer And Aldo Leopold

    1133 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Animal Rights Persuasive Essay

    700 Words  | 2 Pages

    People and animals are identical in several ways; animals both feel, think, behave, and experience pain just as humans experience

    Read More

  • Carl Cohen's Do Animals Have Rights?

    722 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...nger states “Equality is a moral idea, not an assertion of fact. There is no logically compelling reason for assuming that a factual difference in ability between two people justifies any difference in the amount of consideration we give to their needs and interests”. Singer argues that, as there is no justification for unequal treatment of human beings based on capacity, it is also unjustifiable to treat human and non-human animals differently based on their capacities.

    Read More

  • A Philosophical View of Animal Rights

    3952 Words  | 8 Pages

    Should animals be harmed to benefit mankind? This pressing question has been around for at least the past two centuries. During the early nineteenth century, animal experiments emerged as an important method of science and, in fact, marked the birth of experimental physiology and neuroscience as we currently know it. There were, however, guidelines that existed even back then which restricted the conditions of experimentation. These early rules protected the animals, in the sense that all procedures performed were done so with as little pain as possible and solely to investigate new truths. Adopting the animals? perspectives, they would probably not agree that these types of regulations were much protection, considering the unwanted pain that they felt first followed by what would ultimately be their death. But, this is exactly the ethical issue at hand. For the most part, animal rights are debated in regards to two issues: 1) whether animals have the ability to rationalize or go through a logical thought process and 2) whether or not animals are able to experience pain. However, ?it will not do simply to cite differences between humans and animals in order to provide a rational basis for excluding animals from the scope of our moral deliberations? (Rollin 7). This, Bernard Rollin claims, would be silly. He says that to do this is comparable to a person with a full head of hair excluding all bald men from his moral deliberations simply because they are bald. The true ethical question involved is, ?do these differences serve to justify a moral difference?? (Rollin 7). Also, which differences between humans and non-humans are significant enough to be considered in determining the non-human?s fate?

    Read More

  • Equality in Peter Singer´s All Animals are Equal

    2024 Words  | 5 Pages

    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 are awarded equal rights, there is no single characteristic apart from being human that grants them such rights. Secondly, he argues that awarding rights by virtue of humanity is arbitrary and speciesist. Lastly, he argues that sentience is the only characteristic that should be considered in terms of granting animal rights. This leads him to the conclusion that “if a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration… The principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering – insofar as rough comparisons can be made – of any other being”.

    Read More

  • Animal Liberation by Peter Singer

    1078 Words  | 3 Pages

    Animals can be a man's best friend; however, they can also be ones worst enemy after passing certain boundaries. Peter Singer who wrote Animal Liberation gave valid points in my opinion because animals do have a right to live and we should give them their space. Humans take everything for granted and never seem to learn until it too late. Today slaughterhouses are abusing animals in disturbing ways which has to change. I will agree with Singers concepts on animals because they have a right to live a peaceful life like humans; they have a life ahead of them once they are born. Singer argues that animals should have their interests considered throughout their lives. Singer wants to eliminate speciesism from our thoughts which is, a human discriminatory belief that all other animals are not as good as them therefore they do not have rights and we could do what we want to them. We should not be the only types of "animals" in this earth who has a set of rights we should abide.

    Read More

  • Animal Rights

    538 Words  | 2 Pages

    Slaughtering animals has been a problem around for many years. The beginning of changing this was the animal rights movement. This movement was recognized by Alexander Yersin in 1863. The Animal Rights Movement is an organization which seeks to help end the rigid moral towards animals. This means that a group of people work together to stop the suffering and pain these animals go threw just for us to have on the dinner table. Manatma Gandhi once said “to mind the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from cruelty of man”.

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay Regarding Animal Rights As Humans

    780 Words  | 2 Pages

    Over 2 million animals are killed every year, almost all of these animals had never felt the embrace of a loving person. Animal rights are very conservational because some people think animals are things, they do not see them as living beings, and just see them as if they are just something that can be replaced. Everything done to animals have emotional effects on them and they are not things that just do not feel pain. Animals should have similar rights as humans because animals feel pain just as much as humans do, have emotions just as humans, and they have things that humans have.

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay On Mercy Killing

    1643 Words  | 4 Pages

    .... Even though it may be an animal it's life is still precious. But mankind knows letting the animal suffer is wrong. So how is allowing a human to suffer right? Any type of creature in pain, suffering, and not wanting to live deserves the right to decide whether or not they continue on with life.

    Read More

More about Peter Singer's Views on the Killing of Animals

Open Document