Peter Singer's Views On Speciesism

Speciesism refers to the concept of prioritizing a species, or viewing a species, as more worthy of moral consideration than another. It emphasizes the idea of a superior status and a sense of a higher-ranking hierarchical pyramid between humans and nonhuman animals. It could take the form of human supremacism, meaning that human interests are thus more important than those of animals. Sentience is the notion behind what gives a being the right to moral consideration. This more specifically follows the premise of one's ability to feel and sense pleasure and pain. Therefore, it elicits the argument that if a being has the capacity for suffering or pain and enjoyment or pleasure, then it means that said being has an interest of their own. As

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.” This is because “our interest in exploiting pigs is greater than our interest in exploiting dogs (109).” Humans began to justify the way they treat poultry animals due to the fact that they provide tastebud satisfaction and fulfill protein intake, whereas non-consumable animals do not provide the same. But what makes human interest superior to that of the rest of the species? This proves that human and nonhuman animal interests should be weighed equally since they both have the ability to suffer and enjoy