Peter Singer Thesis

417 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: Cruelly towards animals an essay

Singer’s thesis is that the intelligence, capabilities, or profitable values of animals does not make them lesser deserving of rights. This is rooted in the idea of suffering being the baseline instead of intelligence. Every animal can suffer, just as a human can, but a rock cannot. His abortion analogy shows that there may be specific considerations of rights more pertinent to one individual over another, but each is an equal to the other. Singer also points out that while one can easily decide not to be a racist, most of us are speciests because our only real contact with many animals is as food. I agree with Singer when it comes to suffering, we should do everything we can to eliminate suffering and mistreatment of animals. I also realize

Show More
Related

  • Peter Singer's Argument On Moral Obligation

    480 Words  | 1 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Peter Singer Moral Obligation

    1127 Words  | 3 Pages

    All different ethical theories can look at the same problem and come to different conclusions. Even philosopher’s such as Singer and Arthur understand and view ethical values differently. Peter Singer who uses the utilitarian theory believes that wealthy people should give to the degree that the wealthy person now someone in need themselves. John Arthur believes those in need or those suffering are only entitled to the help of the wealthy person if that person agrees to help, and that the property rights of the wealthy person declines the amount that Singer believes people should. People should help other people. I believe all people deserve the right to receive assistance and to not help those people would be morally wrong. However, I do not believe that the help that we are morally obligated to give should come at the cost of our own well-being.

    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

  • 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

  • Barton Hinkle's Do Animals Have Rights?

    1018 Words  | 3 Pages

    Society has placed humans to be the highest life form because of their ability to think and reason and give consent. On these grounds it has allowed society to become numb to any injustice done to animals in any way. This essay will argue whether the subjugation of minority women is linked to the way society views and treats animals by defining current animal rights, the Women’s rights Movement and the process by which the minority is seen as an animal.

    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

  • The Pros And Cons Of Nonhuman Animals

    1228 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Equality in Peter Singer´s All Animals are Equal

    2024 Words  | 5 Pages

    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”....

    Read More

  • A Rhetorical Analysis Of All Animals Are Equal By Peter Singer

    1527 Words  | 4 Pages

    The passage “All Animals Are Equal,” by Peter Singer is about how us as humans should consider animals’ equality as well as our own. Singer starts out by talking about many minority groups that have come out with the idea of their own liberation movements towards their equality. These minority groups consisted of African Americans, Spanish Americans, women, and people of gay orientation. Us humans never really understand how one group of people could give the another an injustice until most of the issues are forcibly pointed out. He states that we should give the respect of giving the opportunity of equality to the nonhuman animals, so that we may be open-minded to extending equality not just into our own species but toward a very large group of species “animals.” Some may say, “men and women are similar beings and should have equal rights, while humans and nonhumans are different

    Read More

  • Philosopher Peter Singer's All Animals Are Equal

    738 Words  | 2 Pages

    In his paper “All Animals Are Equal”, Philosopher Peter Singer argues for an egalitarian view on the concept treatment for animals. This paper will explore the implications of his argument and seek to counter an objection one may have to his view. His argument bases itself in the basic principle of equality. The argument is that the basic principle of equality states that the interest of all being must be taken into account and considered as equal to all other beings

    Read More

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

    1133 Words  | 3 Pages

    As an advocate of animal rights, Tom Regan presents us with the idea that animals deserve to be treated with equal respect to humans. Commonly, we view our household pets and select exotic animals in different regard as oppose to the animals we perceive as merely a food source which, is a notion that animal rights activists

    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

  • 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

  • Vivisection Essay

    739 Words  | 2 Pages

    According to the philosopher Peter Singer, speciesists treat human interests as more fundamental than other nonhuman animals interests; therefore, speciesists ignore the interests of other species where no great benefit to human interests is concerned (Singer 279). For instance, the BUAV claims that experiments like sewing kittens’ eyelids together to study amblyopia have been done many years ago, and yet no cure has been found (Hanlon 1). As a result, Singer argues nonhuman animals are regarded as only “an item of laboratory equipment” (281). Many of the experiments on animals are carried out for rather trivial interests such that speciesists give the weight of nonhuman animals less weight than the interests of human beings. Singer asserts that human beings need to apply the principle of equal consideration of interests to animals to give equal weight on them (Singer 277). Singer’s theory of equal consideration of interests is extremely useful because it sheds insight on vivisection since the fundamental issue in how human may treat animals is whether they suffer and such that pains of animals and humans deserve equal considerations (Singer 278). Whether it’s poultry farming or vivisection, sentient animals have interests of not experiencing pain or suffering (Singer 278). According to Hanlon, animal recruits lead better lives and better deaths in laboratory than in poultry

    Read More

More about Peter Singer Thesis

Open Document