How Does Peter Singer Justify The Use Of Non Human Animals

Decent Essays
One of the strongest arguments for our uses of non-human animals is the argument of need. Most people believe that we are justified in doing what it takes to in other to survive, in fact, most people even think it is okay to kill another human in the name of self defense. This argument does not justify using animals for non necessary things, such as, cosmetic testing, but eating is a necessity, so there is nothing wrong with eating animals. The problem is that we know humans can be perfectly healthy without eating animals. So yes you need to eat, but do not need to eat animals. For his part, Peter Singer says we should think about the treatment of non-human animals in terms of an equal consideration of interests, which means that identical

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Annotated Bibliography Thesis Statement: Although it is common in today's society to consume animals and animal by-products it is more beneficial to abstain from eating animals because it promotes a healthier lifestyle, it is less damaging to our environment, and eating animal products are harmful to the animal populations. Zamir, Tzachi. "Veganism." Journal Of Social Philosophy 35.3 (2004): 367-379. Academic Search Complete.…

    • 1494 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Your grandfather’s Alzheimer’s has progressed to such a degree that his mental capabilities are no more than those of a lab rat. Scientists are in need of test subjects, so your grandpa is shipped off to a facility where they test unregulated amounts of drugs, makeup, and shampoos on him. R. G. Frey uses this example of testing on cognitively impaired humans throughout his piece, “Moral Standing, the Value of Lives, and Speciesism.”. This paper will outline Frey’s arguments on why human life generally has more value than animal life and highlight the exceptions to the rule that justify the mentioned scenario, while also presenting objections to the unequal value thesis and evaluating those oppositions with respect to humans with cognitive disabilities…

    • 1239 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In Singer and Masons “Ethics and Animals”, being a vegetarian an ethical requirement? This thought is absurd. There are so many reasons why this is completely impossible. Average Americans simply cannot afford fruits and vegetables. There are so many amino acids, vitamins and protein that can only be gotten from animal meat.…

    • 344 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Philosopher Carl Cohen stands by the use of animal testing in biomedical research. He states and believes that animals are incapable of moral agency and therefore lack moral rights. Within Cohen’s view of animal testing, our obligations towards animals are minimal and they don’t compare in importance with our responsibilities to beings that have rights, meaning, human beings. On the other hand, Peter Singer’s view on animal testing expands to animals the principles of equal consideration of interest. Singer explains and believes that animal’s interests are not due equal consideration because animals lack the moral standing of humans.…

    • 538 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    For many years, humans have questioned the existence of animals. Animals have provided us with many needs such as entertainment and food, but are they really here to serve the human race? Many people argue that they are for it is the "circle of life". Animals eat other animals such as in the short story "Living like Weasels" by Annie Dillard. It discussed how weasels prey off of birds, rabbits, and mice.…

    • 1148 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    “If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be vegetarians,” said Paul McCarthy. Fifty-six billion animals are brutally tortured and killed every day globally. To break that down, 3,000 animals are killed in factory farms every second, without including sea life. It is only morally right and natural for a human to not eat his fellow animals. Factory farming is done to produce the greatest amount of meat at the lowest cost, always at the expense of the animals.…

    • 567 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Sacrificing Animals for Humans Gary Steiner, a Philosopher, author and Professor at Bucknell University, wrote an article November 2009, in the New York Times entitled, “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable.” In the article, Steiner discusses how unethical he considers it to kill animals for human consumption. In addition to consuming animals, Steiner reports, it’s inhumane to use any products that were made from sacrificing animal lives. The article goes on to say, recently more and more people have become interested in where their meat originated from and how the animals were treated before they were killed. At the same time, others are concerned about whether the animals were fed harmful additives that would affect the health of customers who ate the animals.…

    • 1096 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    While non-human animals devote most of their time to satisfy instinctual needs, humans have the ability to write intricate pieces of literary fiction or thinking about what party candidate best represents their ideology and social needs. Why should we extend the principle of equality to non-human animals if there are a plethora of differences between the humankind and other species? Peter Singer argues that there “is no barrier to the case of extending the basic principle of equality to nonhuman animals” (Singer, 1989, p. 149), for the differences between humans and other animals can be addressed by providing different treatment and rights to the needs of each group. When Singer says that we need to extend the basic principle of equality, he specifies that he will consider this principle to be equality of consideration. What the author means is that we ought not to give greater weight to the interests of one group over…

    • 905 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Peter Singer Speciesism

    • 1782 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Morals are the standards of what is good and what is evil or what is right and wrong. Moral values govern the behaviour, decisions and feelings of an individual. When determining wether it is morally acceptable to experiment on animals, such views as Peter Singer’s speciesism, Rene Descartes’ Cartesian theory and Immanuel Kant’s Kantian ethics can be used to examine both sides of this question. Speciesism proposes that experimenters indicate a failure to give equal consideration to the interests of all beings, irrespective of species, concluding that in a speciesism view, experimenting on animals is not morally acceptable, the Cartesian view explains that animals are not conscious and therefore have no interests or well being that must be taken…

    • 1782 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    I believe that there is nothing wrong with eating meat because it has developed humans for millions of years and is also a natural occurring process. However, I do believe that the method of which we obtain our meat including factory farming is unethical and needs to be changed. The amount of respect that humans have for the animals we eat is miniscule, and it needs to be fixed. Similar to Pollan’s viewpoint on meat-eating and the process of obtaining meat, I believe that animal experimentation is for a good cause such as medical breakthrough and research for developing pathogens.…

    • 1485 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In science, there are limitations to what researchers can and cannot do during a study. In psychological experiments, there is a code of ethics designed to establish boundaries on how experiments can be performed. These ethics are designed based on society 's definition of what’s morally right and wrong. Essentially, they’re designed to prevent unfavorable treatment of the people involved in the experiment. On the contrary, these boundaries can be barriers to the discovery of life changing results of experiments.…

    • 744 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Animal’s Capabilities In Bonnie Steinbock’s “Speciesism and the Idea of Equality” she provides arguments against those of Peter Singers in his article “All Animals are Equal.” Steinbock argues that non-human animals should have specifics rights. She didn’t go as far as saying that they should have the right to vote or marry, but the right to be recognized as coherent beings just as capable of suffering and feeling as we are. The way that I see it, Steinbock provides some valid points but fails to acknowledge the quantity of animals in our world, and that there are some animals that we don’t care if they suffer.…

    • 830 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    PHIL 4300: Philosophy of Food Dr. Kaplan November 15, 2015 Zack Viator To Eat Meat, or Not to Eat Meat.. LOL…

    • 1598 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Animal Testing should be ruled out because it's animal cruelty, the result isn't going to be completely accurate, and it's more expensive to test on animals . It has become common today to dismiss that us as a community test on animals. Some people may argue that “more animals are killed for food, then killed by being experimented on”. On the other hand, us ourselves don’t have to test on animals, but, we have to eat and use the whole body. And spend less money by using volunteers.…

    • 254 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In their argument, Francis and Norman reject Singer’s principle, arguing that humans may give human interests greater consideration than comparable animal interest (Francis and Norman 507). Francis and Norman agree that animal interests deserve some consideration, but they argue that it is ethically correct for humans to give human interests more weight than similar animal interests. They base their argument on the premise that all and only creatures with the ability to form plans for the non-immediate future deserve equal consideration of their interests. This essay supports the stance adopted by Francis and Norman, contending that individuals only bear moral responsibilities to some animals more then others, they are ethically right in according more weight to human interests in comparison to those of animals.…

    • 988 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Superior Essays