Animal rights has been a prominent topic of debate since the rise of the Animal Right’s Movement during the 1970’s. Animals have long been treated simply as resources for the benefit of humans in various situations such as scientific testing, the clothing industry, and especially the food industry. People argue not only about implementing rights for animals, but also about which rights we should consider and how we should go about implementing them. Philosopher Peter Singer provides insight into how we should think about considering the rights of animals. Singer’s argument for animal rights states that we should consider the interests of all sentient beings, which is fundamentally similar to John Stuart Mill’s principles of Utilitarianism.
…show more content…
Singer argues for the principle of equality, which says that equal interests should be treated equally, regardless of the being who has those interests. For example, the interest in avoiding pain and suffering is something that is shared by all sentient life, therefore we should respect that interest in animals. Animals have their own lives and experiences just like us. For them to not even have basic interests such as pleasure and avoiding pain would render them as nothing but autonomous machines. However, he recognizes that not all beings share the same interests. Singer writes, “Since a man cannot have an abortion, it is meaningless to talk of his right to have one. Since a pig can't vote, it is meaningless to talk of its right to vote.” Therefore, animal rights should be relevant to the interests of animals, just as certain human rights are relevant only to certain groups. Singer asserts that sentience, which is defined as the capacity to experience suffering and/or enjoyment, “is the only defensible boundary for the consideration of others.” The boundary cannot be drawn at arbitrary judgements such as intelligence or rationality because this is no different than …show more content…
In other words, we should always consider the happiness of everyone when making decisions. Happiness is supposed to be the ultimate life goal, which is why Mill places so much importance on everyone’s happiness. The happiness of multiple people is more important than our own happiness. This is closely related to Singer’s philosophy because he says that we should consider the interests of all sentient beings, and Mill says that we should consider the happiness of all beings. These views connect because everyone has an interest in happiness. Singer and Mill do differ in a few ways though. They do not necessarily disagree with each other’s views, but they focus on separate things. Singer is concerned with animals and how we should think about animal rights, while Mill is mostly concerned with humans and how we should structure society to cultivate happiness and higher pleasures. Mill believes that there are lower pleasures, like pleasures of the senses, and higher pleasures, like the love for philosophical debates. He believes that the only way the achieve true happiness is through higher pleasures, which is
Singer argues for the principle of equality, which says that equal interests should be treated equally, regardless of the being who has those interests. For example, the interest in avoiding pain and suffering is something that is shared by all sentient life, therefore we should respect that interest in animals. Animals have their own lives and experiences just like us. For them to not even have basic interests such as pleasure and avoiding pain would render them as nothing but autonomous machines. However, he recognizes that not all beings share the same interests. Singer writes, “Since a man cannot have an abortion, it is meaningless to talk of his right to have one. Since a pig can't vote, it is meaningless to talk of its right to vote.” Therefore, animal rights should be relevant to the interests of animals, just as certain human rights are relevant only to certain groups. Singer asserts that sentience, which is defined as the capacity to experience suffering and/or enjoyment, “is the only defensible boundary for the consideration of others.” The boundary cannot be drawn at arbitrary judgements such as intelligence or rationality because this is no different than …show more content…
In other words, we should always consider the happiness of everyone when making decisions. Happiness is supposed to be the ultimate life goal, which is why Mill places so much importance on everyone’s happiness. The happiness of multiple people is more important than our own happiness. This is closely related to Singer’s philosophy because he says that we should consider the interests of all sentient beings, and Mill says that we should consider the happiness of all beings. These views connect because everyone has an interest in happiness. Singer and Mill do differ in a few ways though. They do not necessarily disagree with each other’s views, but they focus on separate things. Singer is concerned with animals and how we should think about animal rights, while Mill is mostly concerned with humans and how we should structure society to cultivate happiness and higher pleasures. Mill believes that there are lower pleasures, like pleasures of the senses, and higher pleasures, like the love for philosophical debates. He believes that the only way the achieve true happiness is through higher pleasures, which is