Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Problems with speciesism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Problems with speciesism
Singer’s argument in favor of the claim that speciesism is false can be formulated as follows. Singer comments that a requirement for equality is to have interests. In order to have interests, the being must be able to suffer. Animals are capable of suffering, therefore they have interests. Since animals have interests, they meet the requirement for equality. Humans base their criteria for equality on being actual human beings. Singer proposes that to just be a human is not the requirement of being equal because humans are different in moral codes, shapes, sizes, intellectual abilities and genetic make-up. Since humans are different from one another, in his view, then it cannot be a plausible reason to treat all humans equally because they belong to the same species. However, all …show more content…
If a being can suffer, as both humans and animals can, therefore they have interests. That maybe, but animals have only basic interests such as food, water, territory and mating. Humans, along with the basic animal interests, have more complex interests such as careers, increasing wealth, acquiring material objects, and increase their knowledge. Humans have more interests than animals, therefore they should have more rights. But animals should not have rights, but instead be treated well of morality. We have the reason, logic, and action to do what we please to animals. But our morality is what tells us to not harm animals for personal pleasure. If we must harm an animal, then it’s for a greater good, such as experimenting research to find cures. Not only do animals not have rights, they cannot practice the rights that humans have. In a democracy, the humans have a right to vote. Animals cannot vote because they do not care about politics what so ever. Animals also cannot vote because they are not intelligent enough to vote for a candidate. Therefore, Cohen’s objections are successful to Singer’s
In the essay, “Are All Species Equal?” the author, David Schmidtz, stiffly denounces the views on species egalitarianism by philosopher Paul Taylor. Schmidtz explores Taylor’s views from all angles and criticisms and concludes that “biocentrism has a point but that it does not require any commitment to species equality.” (Schmidtz, 115). Schmidtz agrees with the major points of biocentrism; that humans live on the same terms as all other species in the community, that all species are interdependent and are all in pursuit of their own good. However, each species should not all be looked upon as the same and with the same level of contributions as every other species. There’s no way to compare one living thing to another unless the two are exactly identical. Therefore, instead of saying that every species is in fact on the same level, we should respect that each living thing should be evaluated differently. This is where respect for nature comes into play. Respecting each individual species for its own attributions is more just than saying that all should be treated equally. Schmidtz goes on to say that biocentrism and respect for nature do not go hand in hand with species egalitarianism, which to me, is a valid
Species egalitarianism is an easily outmoded form of communicating treatment of species because of all the questions and speculation it ultimately raises. The equivocation of animals is absurd. We can’t compare them because of all their fundamental differences, and to do so is insulting to all species that fall below the parameters we instill. Ultimately, there is no possible situation in which species egalitarianism is correct.
I both agree and disagree with Peter Singer. While I believe that we do have a moral obligation to help others, I also believe we have a moral obligation to leave other people alone and let them get on with their lives.
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.
...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.
In terms of animal rights, “Just as it would be morally inconceivable to argue that infants or people with developmental disabilities do not deserve basic rights, it is illogical, supporters maintain, to deny animals those same rights” ("Do animals have rights similar to those of humans?"). Not all humans are perfect and are capable to fully comprehend and understand their rights, but they are still given rights, as should animals since they share similar characteristics. If humans who have the same understanding as an animal about their rights and guaranteed them there is no reason as to why animals should not be protected as well. In a discussion between McMurphy and Harding, Harding replies, "You 're right again. You 're becoming very sophisticated in the jargon. Yes; chopping away the brain. Frontal-lobe castration. I guess if she can 't cut below the belt she 'll do it above the eyes."(Kesey 191). The characters in One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest have mental disabilities that could possibly impede their understanding of their rights, but they had unalienable rights and yet were still treated unfairly. If humans are guaranteed their rights and still treated cruelly, one could imagine the everyday occurrences that animals must suffer and their conditions due to their lack of
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”....
anyone who is able to aid the poor ought to donate in order to help
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.
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.
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?
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.
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).
Regan talks about how some animals are being killed and beaten, but he does not expand past describing a few animal cruelty situations. By humans controlling the lives of many animals in this world, I think humans violate animal’s moral rights and also their inherent value because they cannot live a life that is better or worse for themselves. This is true for the reason that many humans see animals merely as a mean, which means that they do not care for the life of an animal and therefore do not treat them with any value compared to the way they treat humans. Nevertheless, I agree with Tom Regan’s plan to bring light to the conversation of animal rights by acting today and speaking for the animals because they cannot speak for themselves and without humans speaking for them, rights for animals will not ever happen. Moreover, I agree with many of the points that Tom Regan made in his article “Animal Rights, Human Wrongs,” but I conclude for his argument about animal’s rights to be strong all around, he would need to make sure to broaden the variety of animals that he is talking about being restrained and killed by humans. In conclusion, I believe that if one animal has rights, then EVERY animal should have rights. If Regan was to talk more about the life of controlled animals, he would really be able to show that humans are taking away the basic rights that animals should have, uniform to
Animal testing is one form of animal cruelty that should be illegal because it is inhumane, unethical, and the results that come from it cannot always be accurately compared to the results that would come from human beings. Regan Singer says, “To assume that humans are inevitably superior to other species simply by virtue of their species membership is an injustice”, which Singer terms "speciesism," which is an injustice parallel to racism and sexism. What he means is that animals are conscious creatures that are aware of their environment and have goals , desires, and emotions. They should not be forced to suffer through things that they cannot prevent. It is our job as humans to speak up against the dreadful things that animals are forced to go through.