Singer Replacability Argument

1176 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Utilitarian case for euthanasia

The Replaceability argument allows the killing of sentient beings who are hindered by their inability to conceptualise an existence in the future (Singer, p.94-95). Provided such beings lead a pleasant life and are killed painlessly, they ought to be replaced by those who would have equally pleasant lives (Unit reader, pg. 69). I will be arguing that Singer's theory is flawed because it fails to individuate entities with moral status, by treating them as mere 'receptacles' of value and as a means to an end. This paper begins by examining Singer's overall ethical theory and his reasons for the replacability claim. I will then illustrate that his premise also supports the replaceability of humans, those particularly who are not as mentally capable …show more content…

While Singer's argument justifies eating merely sentient animals, his premise would also warrant harming and eating human infants, dementia patients or cognitively disabled human beings. Unless of course, you are a Speciesist who favour's their own species, without moral justification, whilst harming and exploiting members of other species (Unit reader pg.66-67). If we consider perhaps how humans might react to Super Advanced extra-terrestrial beings who arrive on earth to raise and kill humans for food, one might begin to understand the unjustifiability of the replaceability argument, and on a greater level, the killing of innocent beings in factory farming. Singer's Principle of Equality theory also runs into a problem. Although the theory contends that all beings with preferences should have those preference considered equally (Unit reader pg. 60-61), if we go ahead and take animals out of the question, we must then also give unequal consideration to different human beings such as the human infant or the dementia patient mentioned above. This would go against the theory of equality in which all human's preferences/interests are considered

Show More
Related

  • Why Don Marquis's Essay 'Why Abortion Is Immoral'

    803 Words  | 2 Pages

    In his second premise Marquis expands on the idea that the killing of an adult human is a serious moral wrong because by killing them you deprive them of future experiences. He believes that by killing someone you cause “the greatest possible losses on the victim” and supports this idea with the example of terminally ill patients who feel their they are being robbed because their premature death prevents them from enjoying their future (190). Additionally, Marquis challenges the idea that killing someone simply because they are biologically human with the example of intelligent aliens (191).

    Read More

  • Peter Singer Animal Liberation Argument

    515 Words  | 2 Pages

    Peter Singer’s arguments in Animal Liberation have often been misunderstood. The most mutual, and important, misunderstanding among professional thinkers consists in the belief that the moral argument advanced by Animal Liberation is created on utilitarianism, besides not, as is in fact the situation, on the belief of no maleficence. Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation is surely one of the most persuasive, powerful and efficient works of applied integrities ever printed. Since the publication of the first edition in April 5, 1973, Singer’s work has been spoken, and its main theses enthusiastically argued by others. In the essay Singer’s tone was very rational and patient,

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Individualism In The Singer's Argument Of Speciesism

    918 Words  | 2 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Challenging Anthropocentrism: The Inherent Value of Animals

    1497 Words  | 3 Pages

    Three objections that could be raised against my argument are; (1) Animals cannot be considered to have inherent value, (2) Only some animals can have value only due to indirect value to humans, and (3) According to Regan’s criterion permanently comatose humans would no longer have moral rights.

    Read More

  • Singer's Argument Against Vegetarianism

    699 Words  | 2 Pages

    That being said, I am in agreement with it solely because there to my knowledge, has yet to be an argument made that colludes with Singer’s premises but makes the distinct notion the basic principles that surround eating meat, that being an ecological component. Using membership of Homo-sapiens is arbitrary and as such, moral importance should be based off of sentience therefore lending animals equal consideration which provides a further basis for Hare’s own discussion on suffering and killing, it only lends credibility to the notion of providing a full and enjoyable life, regardless of how short lived prior to an animal slaughtering. After further consideration, I believe that Singer's argument does provide it to be impermissible to eat meat based on morals (in the conceptual framework of sentience), but it does not provide enough detail in which one can truly distinguish the fine line between morals and the basic primordial instincts ingrained in humans to maintain ecological

    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

  • 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

  • Animals and Humans Are Not Equal

    1101 Words  | 3 Pages

    The debate of whether animal rights are more important than human rights is one that people have argued mercilessly. Some people think all animals are equal. To understand this, humans must be considered animals. Humans are far more civilized than any animal, they have the power, along with understanding to control many types of sickness and disease. This understanding that humans have, keeps them at the top of the food chain.

    Read More

  • Supernatural in Shakespeare's Macbeth - Witches as Heroines

    863 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Witches as the Heroines of Macbeth & nbsp; Traditionally, the witches of Shakespeare's Macbeth have been treated as symbolic manifestations of the potential for evil. Many students and critics of Macbeth enjoy blaming the witches, along with Lady Macbeth, for Macbeth's downfall.  Regardless, it may be argued that the witches are the heroines of the play. & nbsp; One eminent modern literary critic, Terry Eagleton, has addressed the issue of the witches as heroines directly. & nbsp; To any unprejudiced reader--which would seem to exclude Shakespeare himself, his contemporary audiences and almost all literary critics--it is surely clear that positive value in Macbeth lies with the three witches. The witches are the heroines of the piece, however little the play itself recognizes the fact, and however much the critics may have set out to defame them. William Shakespeare, p. 2. & nbsp;                  For Eagleton, the They are outcasts, much like feminists; they live on the fringe of society in a female community, at odds with the male world of "civilization," which values military butchery. The fact that they are female and associated with the natural world beyond the aristocratic oppression in the castles indicates that they are excluded from others.

    Read More

  • Equal Consideration of Interests and Our Moral Obligation

    675 Words  | 2 Pages

    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 ...

    Read More

  • Animal Rights Essay

    970 Words  | 2 Pages

    Animals are so often forgotten when it comes to the many different levels of basic rights. No, they can’t talk, or get a job, nor can they contribute to society the way humans can. Yet they hold a special place in their owners’ hearts, they can without a doubt feel, show their different emotions, and they can most definitely love. In recent years there has been a massive increase in animal rights awareness, leading to a better understanding and knowledge in the subject of the humane treatment of animals. Where do humans draw the line between the concern of equality, and simple survival?

    Read More

  • Animal Rights vs Human Rights

    906 Words  | 2 Pages

    Throughout the history of the world, there have been subjects of heated debates; there are a few facts that are undisputed. One of the undisputed facts is that animals existed and inhabited the planet before humans did and humans have been dependent on animals for thousands of years. Animals have played a very vital part in our history and one wonders whys should they be treated with much cruelty. While animals have been a great resource, a steady supply of food and clothing and even security, our treatment towards them has become nothing short of appalling. Since humans are dependent on animals for their well being, their comfort and at times their religion, there should be a moral obligation to treat animals.

    Read More

More about Singer Replacability Argument

Open Document