The Pros And Cons Of Nonhuman Animals

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. He begins his statements by outlining the conditions on which we treat animals. From a Kantian perspective, he explains that our most direct contact with an animal is when we consume them.

We brutally inflict pain upon the animals, not exclusively in the final moments as they are being slaughtered, but for the most part, during their entire life. Many animals know nothing other than a life in a dark, crowded barn or factory treated as meat before they are even killed. These terrible conditions blatantly show that we do not care about these animals and we simply rear and kill them in order to satisfy our trivial interests. The cruelty imposed upon these helpless animals is shocking and it is not rare for people to turn a blind eye to the brutality. Another commonplace would be for a meat consumer to say that humans are “ends in themselves, while everything other than a person can only have value for a person” (C. Vlastos). People believe that animals are on this earth simply for human consumption, which can be easily