'Rhetorical Analysis Of Animal Liberation' By Peter Singer

739 Words 3 Pages
Peter Singer,the author of “Animal Liberation”, talks about how he thinks animals should be treated and cared for. Singer provides examples on humans experiment on animals and treat them with the mindset of any other pet. Jane Goodall from “Animal Liberation” states that there will always be a communication barrier between animals and humans, making us unsure of what animals really feel. In my opinion, I agree with the author to an extent, animals should be treated with the same moral respect as you would treat anyone else. Moreover, animals should be treated with the same moral respect as any other living thing. Moral equality is distinct from factual equality. Singer states, "Otherwise it would be nonsense to talk to the equality of human …show more content…
Goodall also states that when coming to the realization that animals have the same right as we do to inhabit the earth, but there is a big communication barrier between us. This barrier might prevent humans to further understand what steps humans need to take in order to understand animal suffrage. Additionally, there are some exceptions for treatment of all living things. People will discuss that even the smallest insect should also receive the same treatment. I think moral treatments of any living thing should just be left to what the people and our brains think is morally right or wrong. It is often argued that we treat animals morally wrong by testing chemicals on them to make sure it’s safe for human use. In order for our species to thrive and expand our knowledge we would need to test certain chemicals on animals because they are disposable. Sure humans are also disposable both since we are barely reaching the pinnacle of basic human right, I doubt people want to be volunteering other people to have experiment done on

Related Documents