ipl-logo

Peter Singer's Argument On The Moral Status Of Nonhuman Animals

1462 Words6 Pages

Moral Status of Nonhuman Animals
Peter Singer is a utilitarian philosopher that believes we should accept the principle of equal consideration of interests. This principle states that all beings, both human and nonhuman animals should have their interests considered with the same weighting. Singer believes this principle must be adopted to avoid becoming speciesist: defined as the preference of one species over another species. He compares this practice to racism and sexism but instead of discriminating by race or sex, we discriminate by species. Through careful consideration of Singer’s argument and objections, we are able to reject his claim that a nonhuman animal has the same interests as a human.
Singer’s argument is based on two pillars – the belief that speciesism is wrong, and by extension, the only fair way to base equal interest is not by race or sex but some other factor such as the ability to suffer or feel pleasure. Singer argues that it is wrong for us to privilege our species just as it is wrong to privilege whites over blacks or males over females. He states that there are …show more content…

If humans wanted to test beauty product that give us marginal benefits we would find some “suffering sponge” that feels no pleasure and suffers less than any other sentient creature. We are now justified to test products solely on that one species because it suffers the least. This is a bad outcome for Singer’s case. Singer wishes all sentient animals to have the same consideration of interests. In the case of the suffering sponge, the species becomes subservient to those of other species: the interests of the suffering sponge become lesser than those of other species. Again, Singer could either accept this as a bad outcome of his argument or contest by saying the suffering sponge is not sentient. The counter would again be that his argument against the sentience of the sponge is

Show More
Related

Summary Of Jeremy Rifkin A Change Of Heart About Animals

248 Words | 1 Pages

In the op-ed piece “A Change of Heart about Animals”, Jeremy Rifkin emphasizes the similarities between humans and animals by providing results on scientific research studies to illustrate that humans should be more empathetic towards animals. In addition, he further explains how research results have changed the ways humans perceived animals and indicates solutions that were taken by other countries and organizations to help improve and protect animal rights. Rifkin provides examples that demonstrate animals have emotions, conceptual abilities, self awareness, and a sense of individualism just like humans. For example, Pigs crave for affection and get depressed easily when isolated, two birds Betty and Abel have tool making skills, Koko

Read More

Summary Of Chapter 18 Pollan By Peter Singer

598 Words | 3 Pages

In the Chapter eighteen Pollan brings up the idea of speciesism, the idea that we shouldn't treat animals differently just because of their species. Peter Singer (who wrote a book on speciesism) argues that we favor humans over animals that have higher intelligence than us. Singer then brings up talks about how chimpanzees would have more worth than a disabled child or an elder with memory loss. While initially reading this passage, it’s hard to take Peter Singer serious for a bit, I mean he’s comparing other animals having more worth than human beings. But when he breaks down that animals have emotion as well, should we take more consideration in the way that we treat animals?

Read More

Jonathan Foer Let Them Eat Dog Rhetorical Analysis

1521 Words | 7 Pages

By doing this, it makes his final statements all the more effective and thought-provoking since the audience is subconsciously making the connection between how dogs should be treated as food and how other animals are currently being treated as food. Yet, he hides this connection under the guise of a harmless argument for the consumption of dogs, making his final argument a realization, of sorts, for the reader. The sudden shift of focus from

Read More

Norcross's Argument Analysis

538 Words | 3 Pages

He continues to look at the “rights” of moral agents and that moral agents can only be if they themselves can make moral decisions. Animals cannot make moral

Read More

Bonnie Steinbock's Argument Analysis

782 Words | 4 Pages

In this paper, I will focus on Bonnie Steinbock’s claim on whether or not we should give equal moral consideration to species outside our own species group. I will first determine what moral concern means, according to Peter singer, and explain how he views the human treatment of animals. I will then outline Steinbock’s argument against Singer’s position and explain how her criticism is part of a much broader issue: that is moral concern. I will finally make my argument against Steinbock as well as address any issues she could possibly raise against my argument. Peter Singer believed that all species, whether it be human or non-human, deserve equal consideration of interests and quality of life.

Read More

Singer's Argument On Moral Obligation

88 Words | 1 Pages

Though Singer raises a great argument on morality and famine, his obligations can be too demanding. How much can morality demand of us? His obligations limit our freedom to act and may even demand us to act in opposition to our interests as he demands that we must always make the morally utmost choice. Singer’s principle also will require us to not favor our moral concerns we may have. Also, if everyone were to follow their moral obligations, wouldn’t people have sacrificed much more than they needed to?

Read More

Summary Of The Unsound Argument

555 Words | 3 Pages

In Gary Francione and Anna Charlton’s argument, it presents a valid, but unsound argument. The argument has 5 premises that lead to the conclusion of the argument. Premise one explains animal have some moral value, but less then a human. This can be seen as a anthropocentric view for it as human centered focus and clearly states that humans have more value than non-humans. In the Anthropocentric environmental ethnics reading, the author states, “…Nature has made all things for the sake of man” (Murray, Anthropocentric environmental studies ethnics, pg. 1).

Read More

Singer's Argument For Equality In Society

703 Words | 3 Pages

Cohen argues that if we follow the basic principle of equality, we have to assume the following consequences: (1) both humans and animals don’t have rights, (2) animals have the same rights as humans do. Cohen right out states that these two consequences are utterly absurd and therefore the basic principle of equality is false thereby making Singer’s argument unsound. Cohen’s objection [partly] relies on Immanuel Kant’s idea that in order to be able to possess rights, a being must have the moral ability to do i.e. be able to use the right(s) to govern itself and others. Because animals are unable to do this, they do not have rights. However, Cohen adds that just because animals don’t have rights doesn’t mean we have to be careless in our regards towards them.

Read More

Analysis Of All Animals Are Equal By Peter Singer

1170 Words | 5 Pages

In human history, a number of oppressed groups have campaigned for equality, demanding for an expansion on the moral view of life, and to be treated fairly in the eye of consideration. This means that when the matter concerns this group, their voices are heard, and treated with value, and consideration. Where this equality is not determined by an assembly of facts like that group’s collective intelligence level, the colour of their skin, or the physical strength of their bodies. This is what Peter Singer brings up in his essay: “All Animals are Equal”, that non-human animals should have equal consideration with humans when matters concern them. Going into a specific set of non-human animals known as primates, I argue that primates should have some of the fundamental rights and equal consideration that are given to humans.

Read More

Eric Olson's An Argument For Animalism

581 Words | 3 Pages

In section 3. Why Animalism is Unpopular, of “An Argument for Animalism,” Eric Olson argues that animalism is unpopular amongst contemporary philosophers. Animalism, according to Olson, is a theory that humans are numerically identical to animals (“An Argument for Animalism”, 610). This means that there is a particular human organism and that organism is you; the human organism and you are one in the same. When thinking about personal identity, Olson reasons that contemporary philosophers don’t ask what kind of things we are.

Read More

Tom Regan Animal Rights Summary

1543 Words | 7 Pages

Given that there are several alternatives at present, there is no logical reason for humans to violate animal rights in laboratory experiments. The use of traditional animal testing today shows an irrational, unjust, cruel act of human selfishness. Although I acknowledge most of Regan’s claims, I do not agree with his statement “…if that means that there are some things we cannot learn, then so be it. There are also some things we cannot learn by using humans, if we respect their rights”.

Read More

Tom Regan's Argument For Animal Rights

655 Words | 3 Pages

I will argue in favor of Regan’s principle that non-human animals should have moral rights. Tom Regan, a famous philosopher, proposed the idea “that animals have rights based on their inherent value as experiencing subjects of life” (Regan). For thousands of years, animals have been used for as pets, food, and labor. Throughout the past century, many philosophers, including Regan, have raised arguments on how we, as humans, are treating animals poorly.

Read More

Biophilia's Nine Aspects

2114 Words | 9 Pages

When human have an interests is not suffering and also conclude that non-human animals similarly have interests is not suffering. Through this analog can draw out a conclusion which Singer suggested human and non-human animals need to have equal consideration of

Read More

Peter Singer's Argument Against Animal Rights

2076 Words | 9 Pages

Peter Singer’s explains throughout history in the United States, everyone wasn’t always equal. Although today we believe all should be treated equal when it comes to different races, sexes, and other characteristics. Singer examples how all races and sexes are treated equally and he called this principle the act of “moral principle of equality” (1), but he explains that some individuals are still ethnocentric today. The argument of equality explains if one believes their race or skin color is support, they are racist. Those who believe that males are dominant to females are sexist.

Read More

Ethical Differences Between Speciesism And Animal Rights

964 Words | 4 Pages

Speciesism, in applied ethics, means a justified bias towards the interests of members of one species over the interests of members of other species for the sole reason of belonging to two different species. The term is used by animal rights advocates to describe the practice of favouring the interests of humans over the interests of non-humans and giving humans a special status that other non-humans do not have. Speciesism, as a term, was introduced by the philosopher Richard Ryder in the 1970s and has become more popular in applied ethics as the movement of animal liberation led by Peter Singer gained international attention in recent years. Speciesism is a justification for giving humans an intrinsic value that other species do not possess. There are differences between humans and animals biologically.

Read More

More about Peter Singer's Argument On The Moral Status Of Nonhuman Animals

Related Topics

Open Document