Will Singer's Animal Liberation Analysis

Will Singer’s Animal Liberation is a significant work that is commonly studied by philosophers. One of the features that makes it so interesting and conducive to intense study is its advocacy for a societal structure is very alien in comparison to the way that contemporary society functions. It is works such as these that shake the very foundations of how we understand that we should conduct ourselves as human beings; they encourage us to contemplate our role in nature. Will Singer argues, in short, that any organism that can feel pain should be treated the same way that a human is to be treated. In short, this argument posits that all organisms should be given equal consideration, independent of their species. The act of not providing equal

It would be very challenging to support the current human population if it our food production practices were remade to follow the ideas presented in Animal

Liberation. Nonetheless, Singer presents a valid argument for why this should be done.

However, his choice of pain as a metric for how different organisms should be treated relative to each other is dubious and warrants further exploration. It is interesting that Singer has chosen a metric that provides an “easy way out” for the human race to continue existing in some capacity; most situations in which pain is used as a metric for how to treat other species do not pose a situation where a non-speciesist human would be interpreted as immoral. Additionally, it is worth asking whether Singer’s proposed definition of speciesism is inherently speciesist in and of itself; as the definition itself is of solely human origin. Humans have a vested interest in the definition of speciesism, as varying interpretations as to how it is defined have varying implications on how humans should be expected to behave.

Will Singer predicates his argument regarding speciesism in Animal Liberation on

A horse cannot control the fact that it is a horse, just as a person with a learning disability cannot control the fact that they were born with the condition. If the lack of provision of equal consideration of interests between races or genders is wrong, Singer argues, it is also morally wrong to do so between members of different species. In the context of Singer’s argument regarding speciesism, it is important to draw a distinction between provision of equal consideration of interests, and the concept of equal rights, as the two concepts are not one and the same. Many likely objections to Singer’s argument are predicated on the conflation of these two separate concepts. Equal rights as a concept is defined as a member of group A deserving the same opportunities as a member of group B. In contrast, equal consideration of interests is defined as a member of group A deserving to be provided with or alleviated of a situation with the same amount of importance as a member of group B. One can say that members of some different groups do not deserve equal rights. For example, a child does not have the right to vote, while an adult does. However, the adults and the child may