In his essay All Animals Are Equal Peter Singer argues that non-human animals are equal to humans. He believes that the next major liberation movement will be the one to end speciesism, which he defines as the discrimination against animals by humans. I will be arguing that the case Singer puts forward is persuasive, and provides a simple and easy solution to end speciesism by using logic and appealing to human emotion. Singer highlights a few main examples of speciesism in our society, the first and foremost being the meat industry. In eating animals, we are treating them “purely as a mean to our ends” (Singer, 108). What he means is that we humans regard the lives of animals as so subordinate to our own that our main concern of them is
…show more content…
He points out that humans really are not equal in every way; some are more intelligent or physically stronger than others. Because of this he says that equality among humans should not be based on an actual so-called alikeness, as it has been with the existence of racism and sexism, but rather equality should be an instruction of how we should treat all humans. Regardless of intelligence or strength, humans can feel and know what it is to suffer. Singer upholds that we should apply this same definition of equality to non-human animals that have the capacity to feel suffering. Equality should not be based on the ability to think rationally or talk, but on the ability to suffer, which, he points out, the animals that we eat and experiment on are capable of feeling.
What makes Singer's argument so sound is how he compares speciesism to racism and sexism. Singer highlights why basing equality on something like one’s capacity for rational thought is in itself irrational because an organism cannot help the way that they were born, and therefore doing so is just as arbitrary as basing equality on the color of someone’s skin, or the gender they were born with. By phrasing it this way, he is providing an easy way for readers to understand his argument because being born with a quality that you cannot change is something many people can relate …show more content…
He does this first by illustrating the barbarity of the meat industry, describing the terrible conditions many animals face in captivity. He then goes on to compare speciesism to racism and sexism, correlating the injustices done to oppressed humans with the injustices currently being done to animals. He then addresses the definition of “equality” and how that definition should be expanded to fit a larger group of organisms.Singer broadens this point by saying that if we base equality only on level of sentience, than infants and mentally deficient people should be grouped with animals. If we start to think of equality as applying to anything than can suffer, Singer argues that it will enhance the moral soundness of our world. By using logic and appealing to human pathos, Singer makes a compelling argument for animal
He points out that humans really are not equal in every way; some are more intelligent or physically stronger than others. Because of this he says that equality among humans should not be based on an actual so-called alikeness, as it has been with the existence of racism and sexism, but rather equality should be an instruction of how we should treat all humans. Regardless of intelligence or strength, humans can feel and know what it is to suffer. Singer upholds that we should apply this same definition of equality to non-human animals that have the capacity to feel suffering. Equality should not be based on the ability to think rationally or talk, but on the ability to suffer, which, he points out, the animals that we eat and experiment on are capable of feeling.
What makes Singer's argument so sound is how he compares speciesism to racism and sexism. Singer highlights why basing equality on something like one’s capacity for rational thought is in itself irrational because an organism cannot help the way that they were born, and therefore doing so is just as arbitrary as basing equality on the color of someone’s skin, or the gender they were born with. By phrasing it this way, he is providing an easy way for readers to understand his argument because being born with a quality that you cannot change is something many people can relate …show more content…
He does this first by illustrating the barbarity of the meat industry, describing the terrible conditions many animals face in captivity. He then goes on to compare speciesism to racism and sexism, correlating the injustices done to oppressed humans with the injustices currently being done to animals. He then addresses the definition of “equality” and how that definition should be expanded to fit a larger group of organisms.Singer broadens this point by saying that if we base equality only on level of sentience, than infants and mentally deficient people should be grouped with animals. If we start to think of equality as applying to anything than can suffer, Singer argues that it will enhance the moral soundness of our world. By using logic and appealing to human pathos, Singer makes a compelling argument for animal