ipl-logo

Peter Singer's Utilitarian Arguments For Animal Rights

628 Words3 Pages

The use of animal products is a very controversial topic in regards to ethics. Many people say that animals are meant to be used to better our lives, and then their are some who will elevate an animal’s life above humans. Neither side is entirely right or wrong. Animals are used to better our lives, they are used as work animals, their byproducts are used to make clothing or fertilize fields, and when they die they feed people. The morality of this use is questionable, due to the fact of the constantly increasing population, animal byproducts must be also increased at the same rate. Animals will be bred simply to be killed for their meat. The “mass produced” factory style that is taken with animals is where the other argument comes into place; …show more content…

The biggest arguments can be condensed down into if an animal is considered to be apart of the moral community or not. Often times if we considered them a member of the moral community it is wrong to hurt them, or use them, and if they are not apart of the member of the moral community it would be okay to hurt and use them. This is an abstract way of looking at the potential arguments and ideas for animal rights. A more indepth view of animal rights can be taken from Peter Singer’s Utilitarian Arguments. These essentially say that doing moral things makes you happy, and acting immoral causes pain, and animals can clearly feel pain, therefore animals are apart of the moral community. This means that we should not harm animals, it does not say do not use them. However, Singer has also argued the fact of speciesism, which is discrimination of a certain species due to the fact that they are not human. This argument dictates that humans and animals are not on different levels of power or importance, but rather at an equal level. This argument can be used to argue that using animals would be immoral, as acting against our equals to better ourselves would be immoral. In other words, we wouldn’t kill our neighbor to have the best lawn, why would we kill an animal for

Show More
Related
486 Words | 2 Pages

Animals having rights will change medical research, for example, If we do not have animals to experiment on to cure cancer, positive medicine for illness or disease then the death rate will go up. Testable Samaniego 1 products that a person uses on a daily bases such as, make-up, skin products, hair products, etc. Experiments can also be a good use to animals, “a 300 pound gorilla named koko was taught sign language and has mastered more than 1,000 signs and understands several thousand english words.” That being said, animals can be a helpful use for many things, making the world a better place.

Read More
860 Words | 4 Pages

Also, the desire to take a photograph with its dead body and mutilate its carcass so that it may become a 'trophy' completely undermines Singer's principle of equality, wherein the individual's best interests are taken into account to ensure that each being is treated humanely. Singer argues that the principle of equality should be extended to non-human animals as the main qualifier for ethical treatment is sentience, and since

Read More
113 Words | 1 Pages

I, like Mary Midgley, agree with Peter Singer in that humans should not harm or be cruel to animals if it is not completely necessary. I agree with his argument regarding animals being used for cosmetic testing and medical testing, and with his argument against harsh factory farming practices, but I find his moral argument against the use of animals for food questionable. I believe meat-eating as a dietary practice for all of humankind is justifiable. Peter Singer implies that humans and non-humans are equal in more ways than many people like to recognize, but one thing he fails to acknowledge is that humans and non-humans also share a shared instinct for survival.

Read More
193 Words | 1 Pages

Thesis There is a growing consent that factory farming of animals or concentrated animal feeding operations is morally

Read More
1462 Words | 6 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.

Read More
1191 Words | 5 Pages

There are several aspects of differing types of animal farming where Singer’s premises do not apply. Scientific evidence shows that some animals likely do not feel pain, and therefore according to Singer they do not need moral consideration. For instance, while bivalves such as oysters and clams are animals, they do not have a brain and therefore do not have the capacity to suffer in a way similar to how humans do. The calculation of utility in this case would allow for the harvesting of these animals for food. In fact, Singer has stated he himself eats oysters on occasion.

Read More
1408 Words | 6 Pages

One topic that many scholars are debating right now is the topic of animal rights. The questions are, on what basis are rights given, and do animals possess rights? Two prominent scholars, Tom Regan and Tibor Machan, each give compelling arguments about animal rights, Regan for them and Machan against them. Machan makes the sharp statement, “Animals have no rights need no liberation” (Machan, p. 480). This statement was made in direct opposition to Regan who says, “Reason compels us to recognize the equal inherent value of these animals and, with this, their equal right to be treated with respect” (Regan, p. 477).

Read More
403 Words | 2 Pages

In the Reflections section by Peter Singer in Lives of Animals, he discussed with his daughter matters of animal rights. He stated that animals do not plan or anticipate for a future, whereas humans do on a daily basis. I have concluded, after reading his piece, that Singer believes that some animals are more important than others. Just like with the example of the Kahlúa and soymilk, he tells his daughter that the Kahlúa will be missed much more than the soymilk. “The value that is lost when something is emptied depends on what was there when it was full, and there is more to human existence than there is to bat existence (page 90).”

Read More
1077 Words | 5 Pages

Also, in the article, "The Globalization of Animal Welfare”, it explains that, “the average person in an industrialized country still consumes far more animal products each year: 181 pounds of meat, 459 pounds of dairy, and 29 pounds of eggs, as compared with 68 pounds of meat, 110 pounds of dairy, and 18 pounds of eggs for each person in the developing world” (Park). An abundance of animals have to be slaughtered because people are “dependent” on meat. Farmers are not doing there job to their full potential. Farmers only care about quantity, if they are producing enough, rather than quality, if the

Read More
940 Words | 4 Pages

Moreover, Peter Singer acknowledges that animals have the same ability as humans to feel and sense emotions. He believes it is immoral to prioritize the suffering of human beings over the suffering of animals. Thus, Singer does not tolerate the concept of speciesism. Throughout history, Singer has thought that humans determine what actions are considered moral and immoral based on the benefits they reap from them. For instance, Singer mentions, “Anyone who kept a dog in the way in which pigs are frequently kept would be liable to prosecution.”

Read More
767 Words | 4 Pages

One of Singer’s bigger arguments in Animal Liberation is that non-human animal’s pains are something to be concerned about if you are a human, and, as a human, you should go to lengths to ensure that an animal isn’t unduly hurt or inflicted pain upon, as best as you possibly can. The argument is based in the fact that, due to humans also being animals, but being the life-beings with the most control and seemingly the most will and ability to cause harm to other animals, humans should not put themselves above other animals. Animals, according to his reasoning, should not be placed on a hierarchy list, and they should not be subject to undue pain and suffering at the hands of humans, as other (morally rooted) humans attempt to not cause harm

Read More
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
501 Words | 3 Pages

Singer argues that non-human-animals deserve moral consideration using three claims: equality is based on equal consideration; equality is a moral idea, not factual; and sentience is a prerequisite for equality. Singer demonstrates how arguments against extending rights to non-human-animals are inconsistent and thus unsupportable. He argues that membership to the species Homo sapiens is the only valid criteria that successfully excludes all non-humans and includes all humans; he cites that the difference between mentally-disabled-humans and healthy-humans is a wider gap than of certain non-human-animals. With current criteria for providing equality not being based on intelligence, or other relevant characteristics, Singer emphasizes that arguments against non-human-animals’ rights are circular with the premise: human beings have rights, and non-human-animals do not because they are not human beings.

Read More
914 Words | 4 Pages

Methods of killing the animals is not the problem with the animal industry. This industry also poses a massive threat to the environment. This is because of the amount of greenhouse gases and waste the industry produces, animal agriculture accounts for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions. When compared to transportation, it is “more than the combined exhaust from all transportation.” (Cowspiracy, documentary)

Read More
1421 Words | 6 Pages

The meat packing industry disregards animal’s emotions and their rights all together by the malicious treatment of animals. The way animals are being treated is highly unfair. Being slaughtered for their body parts and suffering just to be used for protein or an asset to humans is unbearable. An animal’s life is at equal values to a human and deserve the same rights as

Read More

More about Peter Singer's Utilitarian Arguments For Animal Rights

Related Topics

Open Document