Equality in Peter Singer´s All Animals are Equal

2024 Words5 Pages

"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 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”.
Before I continue, it is important to note the distinction that Singer makes between “equal considerations” and “equal treatment”. For Singer, “equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights”. The principle of equality “does not imply that we must treat two groups in exactly the same way, or grant exactly the same rights t...

... middle of paper ...

...egard” for animal interests to take: he implies that we should eliminate suffering, but seems fine with killing animals humanely for food. Is he then saying that the animal’s interest in preserving its life should not be regarded as highly as the utility we derive from the animal’s death, as long as the animal does not suffer? It seems that to be morally consistent, Singer should similarly oppose the killing of animals, not just the deliberate causation of their suffering.
Singer’s argument is certainly persuasive. However, his argument only goes so far as to say that speciesism is arbitrary and we should replace one arbitrary measure with another – that of sentience. I think that more needs to be done to show why sentience, not any other quality, should be the defining characteristic for moral consideration.

Works Cited

Peter Singer, "All Animals Are Equal"

Show More
Related

  • Reevaluating Charity: A Radical Approach

    870 Words  | 2 Pages

    He views it as something that is more of an obligation or moral duty, rather than an option. According to Singer’s view of charity, if more people were to adopt a radical view of charity, we would be able to prevent what is bad, rather than simply promoting what is good. People must give to charity whenever they can because suffering from a lack of food/hunger or extreme poverty is generally bad. Most people that aren’t suffering from extreme hunger or poverty generally have the means to give to charity, therefore, according to Singer, if we have the means to give to charity and we aren’t giving up anything of great moral worth, then we must try to stop the suffering.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Peter Singer's Famine, Affluence And Morality

    1021 Words  | 3 Pages

    In Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence and Morality,” Singer makes three claims about moral duty; that avoidable suffering is bad, that it is our moral obligation to help others in need, and that we should help those in suffering regardless of their distance to us or if others are in the same position as we are to help. First, I will elaborate on Singer’s arguments for each of these positions. Next, I will discuss two objections to Singer’s position, one that he debates in his writings and another that I examine on my own, and Singer’s responses to those objections. Then I will examine why Singer’s rebuttals to the objections were successful.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Peter Singer's Famine, Affluence, And Welfare

    732 Words  | 2 Pages

    While I agree with Singer 's argument in principle, I have a problem with his conclusion. In my view, the conclusion that Singer espouses is underdeveloped. For instance, when Singer talks about the strong and weak

    Read More

  • Peter Singer Moral Obligation

    1127 Words  | 3 Pages

    Singer’s utilitarian theory points out his main arguments for his statement “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” (375). He supports this by suggesting that were are morally obligated to prevent bad no matter the “proximity or distance” , “the number of other people who, in respect to that evil, are in the same situation we are” and that we ought to prevent hunger by sacrificing only their luxuries, which are of lesser moral importance (378). This meaning that we shouldn’t limit our aide to only those that we can see or that we know because morally there is no different between our obligation to them and our obligation to those overseas. Also, we should limit our aide to what we think ...

    Read More

  • Animal Sentience and Equal Consideration of Interests

    1012 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Peter Singer Arguement That We are Speciesist

    1138 Words  | 3 Pages

    Singer’s argument that our society is speciesist hinges on his observation that “most human beings… [would] cause pain to animals when they would not cause a similar pain to humans for the same reason” (Singer, Animal Liberation, p. 17). His hypothesis is that “the overwhelming majority of humans” take varyingly active and passive roles in championing activities that cause irreparable harm to other species in the name of the “most trivial interests of our own species” (Singer, Animal Liberation, p. 9). The examples he provides to substantiate this theory range from accounts o...

    Read More

  • Jeremy Bentham's Theory Of Utilitarianism And Nonhuman Animals

    1268 Words  | 3 Pages

    What do we, as humans have to do in order to give nonhuman animals the proper treatment and equal moral consideration as we owe for other humans? Some, such as Jeremy Bentham would address that, “The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation” (99). Other moral philosophers, like Henry Sidgwick, however reject the theory of utilitarianism thinking that is pleasure all that really matters and are consequences all that matters (111-112)? Humans use nonhuman animals for one purpose; pleasure from using their skins for luxury goods. In this paper, I will explain and examine what Jeremy Bentham is trying explain in his argument, and will attempt to show that his argument is a plausible one, by replying an objection against his utilitarian view.

    Read More

  • Immanuel Kant's View Of Ethics And Philosophical Views Of Animal Ethics

    922 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Global Poverty

    570 Words  | 2 Pages

    Richard Miller finds Singer’s conclusion unrealistically demanding. He approaches the problem differently and claims that we should instead accept the principle of sympathy. According to Miller’s Principle, what morality directly demands is a sufficiently strong concern towards neediness. One’s disposition to help the needy is “sufficiently strong” if expressing greater concern would “impose a significant risk of worsening one’s life”. The Principle of Sympathy differs from Singer’s Principle of Sacrifice, mainly in two ways.

    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 Liberation by Peter Singer

    1078 Words  | 3 Pages

    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...

    Read More

  • Ethics and Morality in Vegetarianism

    1942 Words  | 4 Pages

    Singer P. Animal Liberation. A New Ethics for our Treatment of Animals. Avon Books. New York, 1975.

    Read More

  • The Problem With Speciesism

    1118 Words  | 3 Pages

    In this essay, I will discuss and define both speciesism and moral individualism in Paola Cavalieri’s book, The Animal Question. Additionally, I will provide my opinion on which is the strongest argument for speciesism and why I still disagree with it. Speciesism is the belief that humans are inherently superior to all other animals, solely based on their species membership. This widely held belief is used to justify the blatant discrimination of nonhuman animals, resulting in a lack of moral rights and the exploitation of defenseless beings. This view, that humans are of special moral status, is constantly attempted to be rationalized in various ways.

    Read More

  • 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

  • Argument for Stopping Animal Abuse

    2126 Words  | 5 Pages

    Tom Regan, “The Case for Animal Rights,” in In Defense of Animals, ed. Peter Singer (Oxford:

    Read More

More about Equality in Peter Singer´s All Animals are Equal

Open Document