Peter Singer's Animal Rights

Peter Singer in, Animal Rights: debate between Peter Singer & Richard Posner, makes clear his position that animals which feel, deserve the consideration of their well being by humans. This position echos his stance as an Utilitarian because the moral theory of Utilitarianism weighs the sum of happiness and least unhappiness in a holistic approach that reaches beyond mere inclusion of human beings. Singer therefore encourages us to include the animal kingdom in the conversation of maximum utility, as he believes morality hinges on the happiness of all living beings except, “which there is no awareness of pain or pleasure, and no preferences of any kind”(1). One of Singer 's charges against humankind 's treatment of animals lies with our “decisions about practices that inflict suffering,” regarding, “raising them for food in modern industrialized farms”(3). Singer views the practices of the large scale food production as an unnecessary evil. In the exchange between himself and Judge Posner, he is not advocating that we don 't eat animals but simply that we must change the way farming and harvesting meat is performed. He believes we inflict pain and …show more content…
It doesn 't allow us to say that only our happiness matters, an important idea in a world of vastly difference forms of life and humans with contrasting traits. The call for animal 's to be considered worthy of the happiness we treasure in our own lives, is a lesson in how we should consider the feelings of those within our own community of life that are less skilled with their ability to think, speak, or act for their own interests. Dismissing animals ' pain is akin to dismissing an infant 's pain. Peter Singer is correct when asking for better treatment of animals in farm complexes, because we must use our reason as a resource and not a weapon, we are all better off for