In the article All Animals Are Equal, written by Peter Singer addresses the inadequacies surrounding the rights of animals in the societies of today. Singer opens the article by presenting a scholarly parallels between the fight for gender equality, banishment of racism and the establishment of rights for “nonhumans.” In order to explain this constant set of inequalities that seem to riddle our society, Singer readily uses the term “speciesism”, which he acquired from a fellow animals rights advocator, Richard Ryder. Essentially, this term is defined by Singer as a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species. Singer claims that if this idea of speciesism
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?
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.
In the article, All Animals Are Equal, author Peter Singer asserts that we ought to give the same admiration to the lives of non-human creatures as we provide for the lives of people that all creatures, human and non-human, are equal. In the article Singer argues 3 different points. Equity, moral thoughts, and moral importance. Singer starts shows equity by explaining how decency does not require measures up to rights. For example, he talks on how puppies are not equal being that they do not really know what voting is and they do not have a benefit to vote.
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). Machan believes he has the best theory explaining why animals do not have rights. He makes this claim by first acknowledging how
In Michael Pollan’s article, he addresses the topic as to whether or not it is morally right to consume animals. Pollan’s opinion towards consuming animals is pretty explicit in the beginning. He saw no harm in consuming animals, but his opinion started to change after reading Peter Singer’s book, “Animal Liberation”. While reading through the book, Pollan learns that eating animals, wearing animals, experimenting on animals, and killing animals for clothing are all viewed as “speciesism”. He quotes, “speciesism”- a neologism I had encountered before only in jokes- as a form of discrimination as indefensible as racism or anti-Semitism”. (Pollan) Through this quote Pollan is explaining that he had taken speciesism as a joke, but in fact speciesism
In the film, "Louis Theroux's African Hunting Party", South African wild game farmers advocate trophy hunting as a necessary activity for saving certain species from inevitable extinction due to illegal wildlife poaching. However, when considering Peter Singer's utilitarian theory on the ethical treatment of non-human animals, the process of shooting and killing an animal to preserve its species seems counterintuitive. Applying Singer's perspective, my position is that trophy hunting is morally unacceptable as it reasserts speciesism by disregarding the suffering of the animals being murdered for sport.
In this paper, I will focus on Bonnie Steinbock’s claim on whether or not we should give equal moral consideration to species outside our own species group. I will first determine what moral concern means, according to Peter singer, and explain how he views the human treatment of animals. I will then outline Steinbock’s argument against Singer’s position and explain how her criticism is part of a much broader issue: that is moral concern. I will finally make my argument against Steinbock as well as address any issues she could possibly raise against my argument. Peter Singer believed that all species, whether it be human or non-human, deserve equal consideration of interests and quality of life.
This concept of equality that the critique argues, introduces the treatment of marginal human beings and non human animals, but does not focus on the vast differences that currently exist between these two parties. All things considered, if these critiques hone into species differences and proportionally how to treat each individual party with respect then these critiques would all-inclusive. All things considered, these critiques remain myopic because they do not consider conflicts of interest, especially in regards to the
However, the nonhuman animals we often eat, are suffering due to our selfish interest. Many claim consuming these animals is a need but it is proven we can obtain these nutrients from other food sources. Another example is nonhuman animal testing. We continuously harm animals such as mice, rabbits, cats, and so forth but do not test on humans prioritizing human life over nonhuman life. These are prime examples of speciesism demonstrating the consumer is biased over their own species.
What is the difference between wild animals and humans? Humans live in a world of affection, where emotions and self moral rights matter. In the same manner as humans, wild animals live in a world like ours where they too feel emotions. So what is the correct answer to the question… Nothing in reality, wild animals are like humans. In a very similar matter, they both have common characteristics that relate to one another. In many researches today, it has been proven that animals feel the same effectiveness we have towards them. Studies have shown that animals are more like us than we understand; therefore, they deserve human rights.
In the op-ed piece “A Change of Heart about Animals”, Jeremy Rifkin emphasizes the similarities between humans and animals by providing results on scientific research studies to illustrate that humans should be more empathetic towards animals. In addition, he further explains how research results have changed the ways humans perceived animals and indicates solutions that were taken by other countries and organizations to help improve and protect animal rights.
By doing this, it makes his final statements all the more effective and thought-provoking since the audience is subconsciously making the connection between how dogs should be treated as food and how other animals are currently being treated as food. Yet, he hides this connection under the guise of a harmless argument for the consumption of dogs, making his final argument a realization, of sorts, for the reader. The sudden shift of focus from
Michael Pollan brings to our attention the arguments that relate to the treatment of animals. He begins his essay with examples talking about how pigs are seen as nothing more than meat and how dogs get their own birthday and Christmas presents. Here he questions how certain animals receive different attitudes from us and makes us think about how each animal has a different fate. Pollan wants us to question ourselves and to look at animals from another perspective and see if they deserve more equality or if we need to have a different attitude towards them all together. These arguments are very effective in that they make us question of whether or not our attitude towards certain animals are different because of how they are used or in our eyes some are just more important than others.
A life is a life, i think that every living organisms on this planet that are breathing are important and we all should treat others with respect and with love. Animals are like us, not physically, but they can feel pain and lonely when we mistreated them in some ways. I believe humanity has the ethical obligation to change their behavior towards animals. In the article, “ A change of Hearts on Animals” written by Jeremy Rifkin stated some of his key points that humans should focuses more on animals’ feelings.