Peter Singer All Animals Are Equal Analysis

Improved Essays
Peter Singer argues that all animals are equal and that it is not right to eat or kill animals. For the reason that animals are capable of feeling pain and pleasure, they matter and we should consider them as equals. I agree with Singers point of view as an utilitarian, we are morally obligated to make more pleasure than pain, we can’t validate killing and eating animals because they taste good.

Singer states that not all humans are equal in a factual sense and that we all have different mental capabilities and different sets of morals. Therefore, he concludes that equality is not based on achieving actual equality of all genders and races, but to hold everybody’s interests to the same standard. Furthermore, Singer connects this to the interests that seem to be held by other species. He argues that since animals can also feel pain and pleasure like humans, they then have interests that should be considered. However, pain is an internal experience and no one else except for the person feeling the pain would truly ever know what it’s like. We can only assume the degree of
…show more content…
Is it right to eat animal meat then? Following my previous comparisons, in extreme survival stories like the Andes plane crash, we hear about survivors having to eat their dead friends to continue to live. They are already dead due to the accident and won’t feel pain so if a cannibal comes across their dead bodies would it still be morally wrong to consume their flesh. Another example is a Swedish rider who consumed her horse after putting the horse down because of a leg injury. She explains that it would have gone to the worms if she did not eat it and its better off eating an animal who lived a happy life. Although I disagree with her as I think a race horse are abused to some extent to race for a human’s interests and not for their own I partially agree with her

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    The animal rights movement declares that animals have the same right to life and protection from suffering, as well as any other creature that can feel pain. Doctor of Philosophy, Tom Regan, justifies animal rights from the standpoint of logic. In his article “The Radical Egalitarian Case for Animal Rights”, the author takes a firm stance on this issue and claims that almost all human relationships with animals have the exploitative nature. At the same time, animals have the right to meet the needs and the implementation of their natural purposes. Tom Regan 's argument can be formulated as follows non-human animals have an equal right to respect and treatment for them, which means that hurting them or using as a raw material or a kind of resource…

    • 899 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In the essay “An Argument for Animalism” by Eric T. Olson, he concludes that personal identity is psychological continuity. I will disagree with Olson’s ideas about personal identity in the brain-transplant and the thinking-animal argument. The main point of the paper is about animalism. Olson’s argument is that each one of us is numerically identical to a human animal. Olson says that a person could exist who is not numerically identical to any animal, but it’s not the case for you and I. Olson, then presents his ‘Thinking-Animal Argument’ and the alternatives to that.…

    • 1160 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    On the article “A Change of Heart about Animals”, Jeremy Rifkin argues that animals should be treated humanely because, according to science, the differences between animals and humans are less than what we think. He believes that animals should be given the rights that protect them from inhumane treatment and human consumption. He is telling us that we have to give them the same rights that a human possesses. In affirmation to Jeremy Rifkin, we should treat animals humanely because they also have a heart that can feel pain and a brain that can think.…

    • 773 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    If their lives have less value than that of humans, and their deaths would benefit humans, then killing and eating them is justified.1 The joy humans feel when eating meat outweighs the negatives of extinguishing of animal life, whether humane or not. My view on this issue closely aligns with those of Alastair Norcross, the author of “Puppies, Pigs and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases.” Eating meat that is the result of factory farming is morally wrong, and a moral person shouldn’t be taking pleasure from the products of torture.3 Almost no one can feign ignorance of the issues; videos of abuses have surfaced online, or been broadcasted through documentaries and by PETA, so anyone with access to social media or the Internet is aware that these methods of slaughter are not ethical. In the United States, the overabundance of food options and grocery stores indicates that we no longer need to hunt and gather to survive. Meat has become a luxury item since the vitamins and proteins it may provide us with can be gleaned from other sources.…

    • 1239 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Peter Singer argues that it is morally unjustifiable to kill and eat animals for our own pleasure and as food. I personally agree with Singer’s argument that it is wrong to kill other species, using them merely as a means to our end because I firmly believe that their interests in not suffering is parallel to humans interests in not suffering. Animals are sentient beings, meaning that they experience both pain and pleasure as we do. Singer approaches this argument from a Utilitarian perspective, implying a principle of equality. Utilitarianism states that the moral worth of an action depends entirely on its contribution of maximizing the total happiness or pleasure among all people while minimizing the total pain or suffering.…

    • 1207 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Hesse G. Sambaan September 25, 2017 Comp II What’s wrong with the animal rights by Vicki Hearne Vicki Hearne thinks that there is more for animal satisfaction for happiness that is the personal achievement. Animals find happiness in their work that they do that you can call “talent”. She believes that animal right advocates got all it wrong, making some of the animals suffer and they are more concern of arguing than the animal’s happiness. The essay was persuasive, she uses her own knowledge as animal trainer and she proves that the only one who can really define the animal’s happiness is the owner. to clarify her own essays, she also uses her own animals, her experienced, and a lot of examples.…

    • 1053 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    “Herzog, Hal. ‘Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why it’s so hard to think Straight about Animals”. New York, NY, Harper Perennial, 2010. Hal Herzog focuses on the ethically inconsistent views that prevail in commonly held attitudes toward animals. The author suggests that moral incoherence is hardwired into the thinking of our species as a random by-product of evolution.…

    • 1119 Words
    • 5 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
  • Decent Essays

    In his essay, “Speciesism and the Equality of Animals,” Peter Singer argues that the standard for having a right to get equal consideration as others is the species’ “capacity for suffering and enjoyment” (205), and therefore, a species which satisfies the standard should be protected from speciesism. Speciesism is “a prejudice or attitude of bias toward the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species” (204). Singer states that many people’s voices arguing that intelligence cannot justify racism and sexism bring speciesism towards animals into…

    • 93 Words
    • 1 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In All Animals Are Equal, the philosopher Peter Singer argues that we should extend the basic principle of equality to non-human animals. In order to justify this claim, the author examines the foundations of the basic principle of equality, establishing a moral system that takes into account the equal consideration of interests of living beings. Peter Singer states that in order for a being to have interests at all, one must take into account the capacity of suffering and enjoyment, or in other words, sentience. Throughout this chapter, Singer makes his readers see that if one rejects racism and sexism, one must also reject the idea of giving special consideration to the interests of one species over another one. In this essay, I will firstly reconstruct the arguments used by Singer to arrive at the conclusion that all animals are equal.…

    • 905 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In comparison of “All Animals Are Equal and Moral Standing,” the “Value of Lives, and Speciesism” the key differences are based on the values outlined by the writers. In Value of Lives and Speciesism, Frey discusses the importance of animals feel pain and suffer just as humans do, but also admits that there are reasons such as necessary medical research for harming animals. On the other hand, Singer’s All Animals Are Equal focuses on the rights of hemostats in comparison to those who can make intelligent decisions. The question is should non-human animals have rights and how far do those rights reach? Both agree that animals should have rights, but their major differences including, pleasure and pain, hierarchy, consumption, and richness of life.…

    • 1155 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In today’s society, humans have many expectations to live up to, to be considered as a decent human being. But, what’s the point of having all these expectations when most of us fail to live up to them? “What Should a Billionaire Give - and What Should You?” by Peter Singer is a story that discusses the obligations that Billionaires should have when it comes to the people less fortunate than them. “An Animal’s Place” by Michael Pollan is a story discussing that the reasons animals are so mistreated today is because we lost everyday contact with them. “Shooting an Elephant” by George Orwell is a story about George debating if he should shoot an escaped elephant or not.…

    • 1730 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Name: Lily Date: Endangered Animals How would you feel if animals were staring at you as you sat in a small cage? That’s how animals feel in zoo’s. Some people think zoos aren’t prisons I think critters should be saved from animal prisons or zoos.…

    • 597 Words
    • 3 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
  • Improved Essays

    If this were to be practiced then it would be acceptable and justified to eat animal meat. But, as long as humans continue to mistreat animals before killing or experimenting on them, utilitarian’s will not condone this. Utilitarian’s require humans to treat the animals like human’s and if they fail to do this then we should not use them to experiment on or to kill and eat. This is a positive aspect to the theory because we take animals for granted. Some animals are our companions, or they simply bring us happiness in different ways.…

    • 1122 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays