Animal Welfare Ethical Criticism: Peter Singer's Concept Of Consequentialism

1070 Words5 Pages
Utilitarianism, otherwise known as consequentialism, is an ethical framework that considers actions morally correct or right is their outcomes or consequences: A person’s actions are considered moral if the outcome brings out the greatest and most amount of good. Even if a person has good intentions to conduct the action, a utilitarian would not consider this morally significant if the consequences are not positive. Something is “good” if it fulfills an entities base desires but their pleasures are also part of the equation; utilitarianism can become quite complicated when one must consider all the desires of everyone affected, equally considering each one individually. The Animal welfare philosopher Peter Singer, has several ideas regrading how non-human species fit into the utilitarian ideology and the responsibility humankind should have for entities that traditionally viewed as “below” them. I will begin with a general discussion about Peter Singer’s core idea of speciesism followed by the counter anthropocentrism argument, and conclusions based on real world examples that exhibit human’s morally sound treatment of animals currently. Based on utilitarian ideology, Peter Singer rationalizes that to exclude non-human animals would be grounds for calling someone a speciest: Speciesism is along the same rationality as racism where one would consider their own species to be more significant or better than any other. Singer accuses humanity of thinking this way if animals’

    More about Animal Welfare Ethical Criticism: Peter Singer's Concept Of Consequentialism

      Open Document