A Rhetorical Analysis Of All Animals Are Equal By Peter Singer

In the article All Animals Are Equal, written by Peter Singer addresses the inadequacies surrounding the rights of animals in the societies of today. Singer opens the article by presenting a scholarly parallels between the fight for gender equality, banishment of racism and the establishment of rights for “nonhumans.” In order to explain this constant set of inequalities that seem to riddle our society, Singer readily uses the term “speciesism”, which he acquired from a fellow animals rights advocator, Richard Ryder. Essentially, this term is defined by Singer as a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species. Singer claims that if this idea of speciesism

This quote essentially is a blueprint for the entirety of the argument, as it concludes that if an being can experience suffering, it is entitled to rights. The author explains that suffering is a vital element that gives a being the right to be considered equally. If a being is able to experience joy and suffering, it has the ability to develop and have interests. Singer gives an example of a rock vs mouse incident, to prove this claim, “A stone does not have interests because it cannot suffer. Nothing that we can do to it could possibly make any difference to its welfare...A mouse, for example, does have an interest in not being kicked along the road, because it will suffer if it is” (Singer 5). Therefore, if a being suffers there is moral rationale for that being to refuse that suffering. This argument supports the articles ultimate conclusion that the granting of rights should be base on morale rather than characteristics, sex, race, species. Singer believes that if these change were to be adopted by societies that discrimination would be severely reduced and perhaps eliminated as a