Peter Singer All Animals Are Equal Analysis

Peter Singer argues that all animals are equal and that it is not right to eat or kill animals. For the reason that animals are capable of feeling pain and pleasure, they matter and we should consider them as equals. I agree with Singers point of view as an utilitarian, we are morally obligated to make more pleasure than pain, we can’t validate killing and eating animals because they taste good.

Singer states that not all humans are equal in a factual sense and that we all have different mental capabilities and different sets of morals. Therefore, he concludes that equality is not based on achieving actual equality of all genders and races, but to hold everybody’s interests to the same standard. Furthermore, Singer connects this to the interests that seem to be held by other species. He argues that since animals can also feel pain and pleasure like humans, they then have interests that should be considered. However, pain is an internal experience and no one else except for the person feeling the pain would truly ever know what it’s like. We can only assume the degree of …show more content…
Is it right to eat animal meat then? Following my previous comparisons, in extreme survival stories like the Andes plane crash, we hear about survivors having to eat their dead friends to continue to live. They are already dead due to the accident and won’t feel pain so if a cannibal comes across their dead bodies would it still be morally wrong to consume their flesh. Another example is a Swedish rider who consumed her horse after putting the horse down because of a leg injury. She explains that it would have gone to the worms if she did not eat it and its better off eating an animal who lived a happy life. Although I disagree with her as I think a race horse are abused to some extent to race for a human’s interests and not for their own I partially agree with her