Mississippi State University
Equality of Life: A Response to Animal Liberation
Over time, the killing of animals for the better of the human race has become routine and typical. Whether these killings be for sport, for food, or for scientific research, we as a society have become numb to the inhumane treatment of nonhuman mammals. If today’s society is in unanimous support for the equal treatment of men and women and all different races, then it should be unacceptable to exploit nonhuman life as if it is somehow “less of a life” than our very own. In Animal Liberation, Peter Singer attempts to evaluate and explain how the scientific and commercial treatment of animals is harsh and unjust. In addition, I argue that the killing of animals for sport and for fur is just as cruel and unnecessary. There are many reasons as to why someone might argue that there is no injustice in the way that humans treat animals. …show more content…
Arguments for the use of animals in scientific studies are also based on the claims that humans cannot properly identify whether or not an animal is in pain and is suffering. Pain is an internal feeling that takes place within the mind; therefore, it is something that can never directly be measured or determined. Along with pain being and internalized state of consciousness, animals also lack a developed language that provides a way to communicate any feelings of suffering. As a result, we cannot accurately establish states of consciousness in animals (Singer, 1973, pg. 207-208). Although these are all common reasons and grounds that hunters and scientists use as claims to support their agenda, the logic of these reasons can be easily combatted. I argue that it is wrong for humans to kill an animal for any reason, and there are many grounds to support my argument. In most regards, humans are viewed as equal. However, all humans are not truly equal in all aspects of life. Some humans are more
Equality of Life: A Response to Animal Liberation
Over time, the killing of animals for the better of the human race has become routine and typical. Whether these killings be for sport, for food, or for scientific research, we as a society have become numb to the inhumane treatment of nonhuman mammals. If today’s society is in unanimous support for the equal treatment of men and women and all different races, then it should be unacceptable to exploit nonhuman life as if it is somehow “less of a life” than our very own. In Animal Liberation, Peter Singer attempts to evaluate and explain how the scientific and commercial treatment of animals is harsh and unjust. In addition, I argue that the killing of animals for sport and for fur is just as cruel and unnecessary. There are many reasons as to why someone might argue that there is no injustice in the way that humans treat animals. …show more content…
Arguments for the use of animals in scientific studies are also based on the claims that humans cannot properly identify whether or not an animal is in pain and is suffering. Pain is an internal feeling that takes place within the mind; therefore, it is something that can never directly be measured or determined. Along with pain being and internalized state of consciousness, animals also lack a developed language that provides a way to communicate any feelings of suffering. As a result, we cannot accurately establish states of consciousness in animals (Singer, 1973, pg. 207-208). Although these are all common reasons and grounds that hunters and scientists use as claims to support their agenda, the logic of these reasons can be easily combatted. I argue that it is wrong for humans to kill an animal for any reason, and there are many grounds to support my argument. In most regards, humans are viewed as equal. However, all humans are not truly equal in all aspects of life. Some humans are more