Utilitarianism According To Peter Singer

469 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: Should animals be used in research

2. Ethical ideas
The utilitarian approach:
According to Peter Singer, like humans, many non-human animals are capable suffering; therefore, they should be given equal respect and consideration as humans. However, many non-human animals are not treated equally because non-human animals cannot hold rights that are given to humans, but this speciesism. Using speciesism to grant moral rights to animals is wrong and irrelevant. An action is only right if it prevents pain and speciesism fail to do that and violates the basic principle of equality. However, equality does not require equal rights rather it requires equal consideration. Equal consideration should depend on the nature of subjects rather than the species of subjects. In the utilitarian approach, any action is right if its consequences promote happiness or …show more content…

Animals are sentient beings and years of evidence is available to support this claim. The presence of sentience gives their life an inherent value. Utilitarian approach only considers consequence; however, consequences will have no value if the means to achieve those consequences were foul. We should not extend rights to non-animals by basing on their ability to do a certain task. We should extend the rights to non-human animals because they have inherent values, they have preferences, and they are capable of experiencing pain and pleasure; thus, they should be treated with the same respect as well. According to Regan, Non-human animals are not commodities, they animals are sentient beings like humans; therefore, when determining the moral status and granting rights we should be considering similarities among us rather than the differences. A total abolishment of animal use as a source of food, source of entertainment for research purposes and as companion

Show More
Related

  • The Ethics of Animal Use in Biomedical Research

    1849 Words  | 4 Pages

    Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this concern is still subject to much disagreement. The political, cultural and philosophical animal liberation movement demands for a fundamental transformation of humans’ present relations to all sentient animals. They reject the idea that animals are merely human resources, and instead claim that they have value and worth in themselves. Animals are used, among other things, in basic biomedical research whose purpose is to increase knowledge about the basic processes of human anatomy. The fundamental wrong with this type of research is that it allows humans to see animals as here for them, to be surgically manipulated and exploited for money. The use of animals as subjects in biomedical research brings forth two main underlying ethical issues: firstly, the imposition of avoidable suffering on creatures capable of both sensation and consciousness, and secondly the uncertainty pertaining to the notion of animal rights.

    Read More

  • 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

  • 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

  • On Utilitarianism

    1122 Words  | 3 Pages

    In Utilitarianism, J.S. Mill gives an account for the reasons one must abide by the principles of Utilitarianism. Also referred to as the Greatest-happiness Principle, this doctrine promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people. More specifically, Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, holding that the right act is that which yields the greatest net utility, or "the total amount of pleasure minus the total amount of pain", for all individuals affected by said act (Joyce, lecture notes from 03/30).

    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

  • The Three Attacks Of Utilitarianism

    909 Words  | 2 Pages

    Utilitarianism says that the right action is the one that brings about the most overall happiness. No other moral rule has universal validity. According to Rachels, Utilitarianism is known as “we should always do whatever will produce the greatest possible balance of happiness over unhappiness for everyone who will be affected by our action” (Rachels). Utilitarianism has three main principles. Consequentialism says that the actions are to be judged right or wrong solely by virtue of their consequences. Hedonism states that in assessing consequences, the only thing that matters are the amount of happiness/unhappiness that is caused. The Equality Principle states that each person’s happiness counts the same. The two most important objections to utilitarianism are Consequentialism and the Equality Principle. The replies to Consequentialism and the Equality Principle, shows that Utilitarianism is not a plausible moral theory, therefore, Utilitarianism should be rejected.

    Read More

  • Rights and Ethics: What We Need

    1140 Words  | 3 Pages

    Many countries around the world agree on two basic rights, the right to liberty and the right to ones own life. Outside of these most basic human and civil rights, what do we deserve, and do these rights apply to animals as well? Human rights worldwide need to be increased and an effort made to improve lives. We must also acknowledge that “just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do other creatures” (Dalai Lama). Animals are just as capable of suffering as we are, and an effort should be made to increase their rights. Governments around the world should establish special rights that ensure the advancement and end of suffering of all sentient creatures, both human and non-human. Everyone and everything should be given the same chance to flourish and live.

    Read More

  • What the Government Should do About Animal Testing

    1753 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...e that animals do have the right to be treated ethically. This is what the three R’s are for. Humans however, need to continue to progress and need to think about the safety of our species. It is for this that an ‘on balance justification’ need be made where humans can maximize the utility and progress of our species.

    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

    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.

    Read More

  • The Case for Animal Rights

    850 Words  | 2 Pages

    "The Case For Animal Rights" written by Tom Regan, promotes the equal treatment of humans and non-humans. I agree with Regan's view, as he suggests that humans and animals alike, share the experience of life, and thus share equal, inherent value.

    Read More

  • Utilitarianism In John Singer's Peter Singer Solution To World Poverty

    1828 Words  | 4 Pages

    Peter Singer practices utilitarianism, he believes the consequence of an action matters more than the reason behind the action. Singer is trying to convince his audience to donate their money to end world poverty. He believes it is moral to give as much money as the person can give, allowing them to purchase just enough for them to live on, and this will be the right action to take. Singer is aiming toward the United States to contribute more to charity. Singer does not consider specific aspects that do not support his argument and causes his argument to not list specific aspects of his belief. Singer’s argument is not a good argument because he does not consider the ramifications of people donating their surplus of money would do to the economy; is it our duty to feed the poor; and that our moral intuitions are not consequentialist at all when it concerns what our rescue duties entail.

    Read More

  • Radical Ecology Summary

    1235 Words  | 3 Pages

    Non-human animals are very much similar to humans but, we cannot assess how much suffering they are enduring. and therefore people who are holding other try to justify how we treat these non-human animals. Answering these types of fundamental question can help assess a course of action for animal treatments. Branching of the ethics of ecocentrism my theoretical assumptions about my own ethics and worldview would be holism. A philosophical theory that considers the value of the whole over the an individual entity. The value of the individual, then would only depend on the contribution the individual makes for the good of the whole. The most general type of holism in environmental ethics is ecocentrism. Many people whose worldviews align with holism argue that it, can cause the most or less value to individual if people decided to become a part of the ecosystem processes. On the other side of the argument if we must intrinsic value to all existing things equal, would that bring about shortages in normal animals, for example, chicken and cows would considerably not be worth as extraordinary or jeopardized species

    Read More

  • Animal Welfare In Farming

    1683 Words  | 4 Pages

    ... concept. An animal cannot follow our rules of morality, “Perhaps most crucially, what other species can be held morally accontable” (Scully 44). As a race humans must be humane to those that cannot grasp the concept. Animals do not posess human rights but they posess the right to welfare and proper treatment by their handlers.

    Read More

  • Animal Rights Debate: Should Animals Have Rights As Humans?

    1452 Words  | 3 Pages

    Should animals have the same rights as humans? The answer is simply an opinion, but before someone decides whether or not animals have rights they must first take into consideration a few things. First, one must decide what the term “rights” is referring to: moral rights or legal rights. Secondly, one must determine what the term animal is referring to: are humans considered animals? Thirdly, one must ask are animals’ sentient beings: Can animals feel pain and suffer? The next element is to take into consideration is all of the beneficial and atrocious aspects of animal testing, and then decide if the beneficial aspects outweigh the atrocious aspects or vice-versa. The final step is to decide if there is a middle ground to the argument: Can animals have rights

    Read More

More about Utilitarianism According To Peter Singer

Open Document