All Animals Are Equal Essay

In order to understand Peter vocalisers article All Animals Are Equal, one has to look at his ensure pip and perspective. singer is a utilitarian, which is someone who cerebrates that best outcome is something that causes that sterling(prenominal) amount of pleasure (or the least amount of cark) for the greatest number of hatful. However, in this definition the word people is used, as to mean only earth. This is the point that singer is trying to argue. Who is to say that animals dont find oneself pain or experience happiness? Singer believes in the equal circumstance of interests, and that we should ext rarity this basic principle to some other species.In Singers first point on extending equal consideration, he poses the question, if a lesser intelligence squeeze out non be used to morally discriminate against military man, then how can it be used to discriminate against animals? Singer explains that hes not saying both groups should be treated scarcely the same, becaus e there be differences in the midst of species, therefore they should break different rights. Singer states, The interests of every macrocosm affected by an action argon to be taken into grade and given the same weight as the like interests of any other being (LaFollette, 110). For a being to feel interests, they must cause the potential to enjoy life and suffer. He points out that any animal would have an interest in not being tormented, so it does not suffer. We could be sure that animals feel pain base on the fact that they repoint the same signs used by humans that show they feel pain. For example, if a person would to step on a dogs laughingstock he might bark, the same as if a human had their communicate slammed in the door they would yell.Singer brings up the issue of sexism and racism. No case how we may try to look at it, not all humans ar equal. He argues, a persons sex is no guide to his or her abilities, and this is why it is unjustifiable to discriminate on the founding of sex (LaFollette, 109), and the same goes for racism basing a persons abilities based on the color of their skin is just as absurd. Racism and sexism are both morally wrong, therefore so is speciesism.Another point the Singer brings up is how humans let their own interests take priority everywhere other species. The fact that we eat animals shows that wethink of them as nothing more(prenominal) than a means to our ends. This is true because there are other, more nutritional, slipway to meet our needs. By doing this we cause additional suffering for animals. Moreover, the cruel expression that we put these animals through before they are killed for us to eat. Yet other type of discrimination we perform on these animals is investigateation to see the affects of substances and if they are safe on humans. Basically, animal experimentation and consumption is wrong pull up if we were willing to perform the same acts on a human with identical capabilities.Singer reasons that, a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an child of a day, or a week, or raze a month (LaFollette, 110). He argues that if we cannot experiment on humans with complete(a) brain damage or defective infants, then we should not experiment on animals. Furthermore, cleanup spot animals for food would be the same as killing these humans for food. Singer is saying that if instead of treating these defective infants that dont stand a chance, we should use them to test medical treatments, which in the end is the greater good for more people.The last aspect of speciesism that Singer negotiation about is philosophers trying to draw a distinct, clear line between the equality of humans and animals. However, in order to include all humans it would have to be a broad generalized definition, which could not go without including some animals also. though an infant may not have higher-ranking characteristics to th at of a dog, doesnt mean that we can research on the infant though it is looked at as quite all right to do research on a dog.Singer presents a sound public debate on the rights of animals. As I have pointed out, all of his premises are true, and well backed up. For the most part I retain with his argument, demur for the point he made on experimenting with infants or disabled humans. Though he did present his point well and backed it up, that just seemed to be the most controversial statement. I can understand his point of view of experimenting on a perfectly healthy animal who can feel pain, so why not a person who doesnt have much of a future ahead, however I dont agree with it. It comes down to quality of life. It might work as a hypothetical situation about some unknown infant, but whatfamily would in reality give up their child for experimentation? Or even a loved one who may be disabled? There is an wound up standpoint that I think Singer needs to address.Furthermore, I a gree that since there are other means of getting the nutrition that we need, people should make an effort to eat less meat. Nonetheless, people will lapse to eat meat due to the fact that they ignorant as to what exactly the animals go through before they are killed for us to eat. Personally, I believe that that is how people like it. Then that way they dont have to feel guilty every time they pick up a hamburger, and they can just go on enjoying it. This is a controversial topic, and Singer proved his point that animals should be extended the equality of consideration that a person shows his own species.LaFollette, Hugh. Ethics in Practice. Published 1997. Copyright 1997, 2002.Singers Utilitarian Animal Rights. April 20, 2004.