Peter Singer All Animals Are Equal Summary

Peter Singer is a well-known ethicist who rights about his thoughts that animals and humans should have equal interests. Before deciding to debate this topic I took the time to read Singer’s “All Animals are Equal”. After reading this I believe that Singer ignored the reality of nature to build his argment; however, one cannot just simply “forget” the irreversible acts of nature.
There is a great debate over wether animals should have rights that are equal to a humans rights. In Singer’s theory, “All Animals are Equal” the principle of equality is giving equal consideration to all interests, regardless of actual abilities. Interest means that there is a feeling of a being, whose attention, curiosity, or concern has been aroused by something. He goes on to infer that animals can feel pain; therefore, animals have interests and deserve to be treated with equal respect. This article will interest the humilitarian in humans, and offers an alluring point of view.
When I completed this reading I believe that it was written very eloquently. However, it felt manipulated, particularly in his use of the term “speciesism.” Throughout Singer’s writing I felt that he was implying speciesism, discrimination based on species, as strictly human circumstance. When reading this I cannot help but argue the fact that, every animal in fact follows this …show more content…
One word can sum up this question, survival. Singer says that it is “evil” for a human to kill an animal. I however would argue that humans and animals both have the same idea in mind, and the main concern of both is to stay alive despite the circumstances they are challenged with. Singer infers that humans believe they are superior to animals and therefore they think that it is okay for humans to take the lives of innocent animals for their greater good without