Are humans Speciesist?
It is deemed that all humans are created equal, and each individual has equal consideration, but do we disperse this same idea of equal consideration to other animals? In 1975, a famous philosopher, contributor to the Utilitarian society, and publisher of Animal Liberation, Peter Singer popularized the term “speciesism”, homologous to sexism and racism, to tackle the very same question above. Peter Singer defines speciesism as, “an attitude of bias against a being because of the species to which it belongs”. My assignment is to advocate Singer’s opinion and determine whether humans are speciesist. Moreover, under the subject of speciesism, determine whether it’s wrong to be speciest, reveal whether humans can be otherwise, …show more content…
All humans are guilty of partaking in actions of speciesism, because it is simply unavoidable. According to Peter Singer, “the overwhelming majority of humans—take an active part in, acquiesce in, and allow their taxes to pay for practices that require the sacrifice of the most important interests of members of other species in order to promote the most trivial interests of our own species”. His statement couldn’t be closer to the truth, unaware human beings are supporting speciesism indirectly through the medium of their dollars. Whenever a human exchanges their dollars, they are essentially paying the transformation of turning raw materials into products. Unfortunately, when that is done, the environment must pay the price to be plucked of the raw materials such as fracking, deforestation, and distribution of pollution. As goes with everything, if one would to benefit, then the other shall suffer, and so we think for the progress of the human and not for the regression of the animal. Besides human’s greed in their currency, humans are just greedy in …show more content…
Human beings are only obliged to extend ethical treatment to animals only if they are endangered, domesticated, or abused. Sure one can raise the argument for Darwinism to take it’s role, but if humans have the ability to alter mother nature’s intentions, then why let it happen? Besides, every single plant, animal, or organism contributes to an ecosystem, and are either prey,predator, or producer and create an interdependence on one another for survival. If an endangered species ends up extinct, then the whole ecosystem will suffer. In the words of the World Wildlife Fund, "When you remove one element from a fragile ecosystem, it has far-reaching and long-lasting effects on biodiversity." (thoughtco) For the case of the domesticated, we are ethically obliged because that animal relies on human beings. Before domestication, the animal could rely on itself, however after domestication, the animal relies on human and loses the ability to sustain itself in the wild. Finally, we are obliged to extend ethical treatment to animals that are being abused. There is no reason why an animal should lack so much moral and ethical treatment to the point that they are physically beaten. No animal, should have experience any form of abuse in their
It is deemed that all humans are created equal, and each individual has equal consideration, but do we disperse this same idea of equal consideration to other animals? In 1975, a famous philosopher, contributor to the Utilitarian society, and publisher of Animal Liberation, Peter Singer popularized the term “speciesism”, homologous to sexism and racism, to tackle the very same question above. Peter Singer defines speciesism as, “an attitude of bias against a being because of the species to which it belongs”. My assignment is to advocate Singer’s opinion and determine whether humans are speciesist. Moreover, under the subject of speciesism, determine whether it’s wrong to be speciest, reveal whether humans can be otherwise, …show more content…
All humans are guilty of partaking in actions of speciesism, because it is simply unavoidable. According to Peter Singer, “the overwhelming majority of humans—take an active part in, acquiesce in, and allow their taxes to pay for practices that require the sacrifice of the most important interests of members of other species in order to promote the most trivial interests of our own species”. His statement couldn’t be closer to the truth, unaware human beings are supporting speciesism indirectly through the medium of their dollars. Whenever a human exchanges their dollars, they are essentially paying the transformation of turning raw materials into products. Unfortunately, when that is done, the environment must pay the price to be plucked of the raw materials such as fracking, deforestation, and distribution of pollution. As goes with everything, if one would to benefit, then the other shall suffer, and so we think for the progress of the human and not for the regression of the animal. Besides human’s greed in their currency, humans are just greedy in …show more content…
Human beings are only obliged to extend ethical treatment to animals only if they are endangered, domesticated, or abused. Sure one can raise the argument for Darwinism to take it’s role, but if humans have the ability to alter mother nature’s intentions, then why let it happen? Besides, every single plant, animal, or organism contributes to an ecosystem, and are either prey,predator, or producer and create an interdependence on one another for survival. If an endangered species ends up extinct, then the whole ecosystem will suffer. In the words of the World Wildlife Fund, "When you remove one element from a fragile ecosystem, it has far-reaching and long-lasting effects on biodiversity." (thoughtco) For the case of the domesticated, we are ethically obliged because that animal relies on human beings. Before domestication, the animal could rely on itself, however after domestication, the animal relies on human and loses the ability to sustain itself in the wild. Finally, we are obliged to extend ethical treatment to animals that are being abused. There is no reason why an animal should lack so much moral and ethical treatment to the point that they are physically beaten. No animal, should have experience any form of abuse in their