Peter Singer's Argument Against Animal Rights

2076 Words9 Pages
Animals Rights In society, animals are being killed for food, fur, and experiments. This raises the question is it ethical to kill other animals for our own person gain? As human, we live in a society where it is humane to kill other animals when it comes to survival, clothing and to help cure diseases. But this is not really answering the question why is this okay? As humans, the reason why it is ethical to kill other species is based on protecting humans, being happy, and the fact that humans are more intelligent. When we experiment on other species we sacrifice an innocent animal to benefit humanity, yet we wouldn’t experiment on another human because it is unethical. For example, in World War II, specifically the Holocaust, people were…show more content…
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. Singer connects these points by saying that there should be a movement known as the “The Right of Animals,” (1) movement. This movement will dictate that all species are to be treated equal to human. Those who disagree or infringe on this movement are speciest. When comparing race or gender, Singer explains that everybody should be treated with equal rights. Along with this, the equality of human and other species, one must consider factors such as intelligence, moral capacity, and physical strength. When considering testing these points, Singer explains that humans do not function the same way as other species. Therefore, these differences are characteristics which set other species apart. Singer uses equality among humans to explain how if human learn to excel equally if given an opportunity to do so,…show more content…
The way singer explains this principle is through a utilitarian prospective, suggesting two viewpoints, Jeremy Bentham says “interest of every being affected by an action are to be taken into account and given the same weight as the like interests of any other being.”(3) The second utilitarian, Henry Sidgwick, says “ the good of any one individual is of no more importance, from the point of view (if I may say so) of the Universe, than the good of any other.”(3) Singer explains in these principles an aspect of achieving happiness and avoid pain. As humans our focus is to achieve the maximum amount of pleasure and minimum amount of pain, Singer relates this to the principle of equality and how this principle can be extended to all species not just humans. Singer explains the argument by stating that “If a being is not capable of suffering, or of experiencing enjoyment or happiness, there is nothing to be taken into account,”(4). Singer explains that just because a species can experience enjoyment or happiness does not make it right to make other species suffer. Singer describes that it is not acceptable to eat other species, and that one should consider the suffering the animal endured beforehand. Singer provides two examples that show that there is a disconnect in equality between humans and other species. The first example is meat; before the meat gets to our table
Open Document