Peter Singer Animal Liberation Summary

Are animals as important as human beings? Peter Singer answers this question in his article “Animal Liberation.” Singer supports the idea that animals are as important as human beings. People should stop seeing animals as a means of satisfying human wants and see the animal as equals. Exploitation of animal will stop when humans will accept that it is unnecessary.

The wouldn’t let us use them to test new lotions or perfumes. Nor would they let themselves be used for our leather jacket and bags and shoes. Animals wouldn't let themselves be sacrificed just to please a human because what do we do for them nothing right. In conclusion I think that animals should have some rights .I believe animals should have Bill of Rights because they don’t get feeded right, they get mistreated, and they and they suffer of separation for there own kind.

Animal rights are essential primarily due to present practices of animal abuse, animal hunting, and animal experimentation. Furthermore, animal are in many ways just like humans. They have emotions and families; it is non-moral to harm the animals in ways that we know is not appropriate to do for humans. Even Allah command us to respect them. Do Animals Have Rights?

However it is when non-moral commands come to play where the DCT begins to lose its meaning. As times change and practices differ, non-moral commandments no longer have an effect and are not even practiced. An example of this can be found in the book of Leviticus “neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee” (Leviticus 19:19 KJV). The commandment states we are not allowed to wear a mix of fabrics, a claim that holds no standing today.

Many people invest their time and money in purchasing animals as a pet. It may come as a shock, but PETA also believes that no one should purchase any animal as a pet, and if one does own a pet they should be released. Amanda Radke earned a degree in agricultural communications at the South Dakota State University (“Amanda Radke, Freelance Contributor”). She voiced her opinion on the subject of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals in an article, “PETA Hates Pet Ownership; Kills 1,456 Cats and Dogs in 2015.” Radke states, “It’s no surprise to farmers and ranchers that the extremist animal rights group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), has a different idea of what constitutes proper animal care.”

human animals as occupying the equal and same moral right and capacity just as human beings do. In this case, I argue that animals should not be given the cruel treatment by man as this promotes immorality in human nature. Non-human animals are subject of a life, meaning they are sentient and attentive that they exist, they have similar degrees of biological density they favour some things and dislike others, they make

They can feel all of the pain being caused to them, and humans don’t know that pain because we don’t have to go through it, we don’t have to feel it. Or see it. If the consumers saw what was happening to these poor animals, they would think twice about buying the products that test on animals. There are many people standing up and fighting against animal testing, people whom all of us look up to. Paul McCartney is one of those people, and he stands up and fights for these poor animals being used to test chemicals.

-On the other hand, many people like activists and welfarists from animal rights organizations, believe killing an animal should be and for them is against the law, because it is still an animal with feelings that was also trying to defend itself. -Some religions, such as Buddhism also believe that animals are superior to men and should therefore not be damaged in any way. They say that no one has the right to take away a living beings life, because they too have the right to exist. -In conclusion, no human being shall feel superior to other living beings, but when it comes to helping other people or saving yourself when you’re in danger, the injuring or maybe killing of an animal is nothing.

Many of the concerns of the ethicality of animal experimentation is understood by the people who still believe animal testing is necessary. Many regulations are enforced on animal studies in an attempt to make them as moral as possible. Additionally, there are also campaigns that advocate the regulation on animal testing “ which advocates the search (1) for the replacement of animals with non-living models; (2) reduction in the use of animals; and (3) refinement of animal use practices “ (Hajar 7). They understand the upset at the idea of animal testing, and they want to appease the masses by keeping the testing as humane as it can possibly be. Even with all of the outcry, there is a large group of people that see animal experimentation as a necessary evil.

She makes a strong point about animal rights: “animal rights and human rights go hand in hand. Lack of respect for other species often translates into insensitivity and cruelty towards our own species” (Poorva Joshipura 4). Animal rights is the idea that animals should live free of humans taking advantage of them (“Animal Rights” 1). According to the US Federal Bureau of Investigation, “cruelty to animals is one trait that regularly appears in its computer records of serial rapists and murderers” (Joshipura 4) Additionally, the American Psychiatric Association classifies cruelty towards animals as an indicator of a mental disorder (Animal Cruelty 2). Joshipura’s point of view shows why animals should not be harmed.

The publisher’s intended audience are people who advocate for the rights of animals and are searching for different methods of testing products. The purpose is to inform the people that animal testing is “old school” compared to the new innovative ideas. They want the people to be aware that these experimentations are not successful with the animals nor when they are tested on humans.

Peter Singer’s article, “Speciesism and the Equality of Animals,” claims that human beings should apply the principle of equal consideration of interests to nonhuman beings as well as human beings, and Singer asserts that the capacity for suffering is an important characteristic that gives a human or nonhuman being the right to equal consideration. Simply put, human beings should treat other human beings and nonhuman beings equally. Peter Singer, the Australian philosopher, defines speciesism “as a prejudice or attitude of bias toward the interests of members of one’s own species and against those members of other species” (277); therefore, Singer’s principle of equal consideration of interests is extremely valuable because it sheds insight against speciesism, such that speciesism is similar to racism and sexism. Peter Singer begins his argument against speciesism by agreeing with the philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, that a full-grown horse or dog is a more of a conversable and rational animal than a newborn child (Bentham qtd. in Singer 278).