Peter Singer, a utilitarian philosopher argues that non-human species should be treated equally to human species. Singer mentions that anyone who doesn’t believe in equal rights for animals is called a speciesist. Singer also goes into detail about how human speciesists believe that the pain felt by pigs or mice is not equal to the pain experienced by humans. In this essay, I would like to defend Singer’s argument, killing animals is not justifiable. Therefore, we should stop consuming animals by becoming a vegetarian or a vegan.
Speciesists have been using excuses such as “animals are not capable of feeling pain” and therefore, it’s okay to kill them for consumption. However, animals show pain and suffering through different behavioral ways. Animals are capable of feeling sad, grief, and depression. Singer points out that many of the behaviours carried out by animals while in pain is similar to humans. Yet, humans continue to ignore this matter by seeing animals as less important since they are not capable of speaking or understanding. Incapability to speak should not define the level of equality for each species since pain is not connected to language. Human babies, unable to
…show more content…
Yet, it really is not. For years we have slaughtered animals, treated them poorly, abused them and caused them pain and suffering. As Singer mentions, killing animals will take away their vital meaning for a trivial purpose, “Their flesh is a luxury, consumed because people like its taste”. As I read Singer’s argument I felt guilt and uneasiness, a guilt that was not justifiable. In the past, I used to think those who slaughter animals are more at fault. I’m sure many people feel this way, but now I see that everyone is at fault. Just because someone else is doing the ugly work of killing innocent species, it doesn’t mean that the rest of the population consuming it is not at