Reading Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation challenged me to dig deeper into my preexisting beliefs on the relationship between animals and humans. I appreciate Singer’s argument in favor of animal rights, based on our principle of equal consideration. I agree with many of his positions throughout the book, specifically his stance against animal testing, factory farming, and using animals for human entertainment. However, I differ on the primary issue of consuming an omnivorous diet. My essay explains my partial agreement with Singer’s views, specifically in regard to my beliefs on ethical farming, population control, and food chains. The first focal point that I want to discuss is my support for an omnivorous diet. I understand that Singer advocates …show more content…
Our anatomical adaptations support the idea that we have sharp teeth for cutting meat, molars for grinding plants, and a digestive system suited for both plants and animals. It is sometimes possible to achieve a sufficient quantity of protein, iron, zinc, and B12 through plant-based sources, but it isn’t cost efficient or easily accessible for most people. I personally feel that in an ideal world, more humans would practice small and ethical farming to purchase higher quality food sources, resulting in prosperity and trust within communities. By reducing our reliance on processed meat and factory farmed products, we can increase our support towards more humane and pasture raised farming systems, allowing us to nourish ourselves while being mindful of how we treat animals. Second, I have to disagree with Singer’s perspective on speciesism. Singer described speciesism as the belief that one species is superior to another and that we shouldn’t use our human abilities to inflict pain and suffering upon others. I’m very passionate about my belief in natural selection and the need to embrace survival as the