Are Humans Speciesist Peter Singer Analysis

Great Essays
Are humans Speciesist?

It is deemed that all humans are created equal, and each individual has equal consideration, but do we disperse this same idea of equal consideration to other animals? In 1975, a famous philosopher, contributor to the Utilitarian society, and publisher of Animal Liberation, Peter Singer popularized the term “speciesism”, homologous to sexism and racism, to tackle the very same question above. Peter Singer defines speciesism as, “an attitude of bias against a being because of the species to which it belongs”. My assignment is to advocate Singer’s opinion and determine whether humans are speciesist. Moreover, under the subject of speciesism, determine whether it’s wrong to be speciest, reveal whether humans can be otherwise,
…show more content…
All humans are guilty of partaking in actions of speciesism, because it is simply unavoidable. According to Peter Singer, “the overwhelming majority of humans—take an active part in, acquiesce in, and allow their taxes to pay for practices that require the sacrifice of the most important interests of members of other species in order to promote the most trivial interests of our own species”. His statement couldn’t be closer to the truth, unaware human beings are supporting speciesism indirectly through the medium of their dollars. Whenever a human exchanges their dollars, they are essentially paying the transformation of turning raw materials into products. Unfortunately, when that is done, the environment must pay the price to be plucked of the raw materials such as fracking, deforestation, and distribution of pollution. As goes with everything, if one would to benefit, then the other shall suffer, and so we think for the progress of the human and not for the regression of the animal. Besides human’s greed in their currency, humans are just greedy in …show more content…
Human beings are only obliged to extend ethical treatment to animals only if they are endangered, domesticated, or abused. Sure one can raise the argument for Darwinism to take it’s role, but if humans have the ability to alter mother nature’s intentions, then why let it happen? Besides, every single plant, animal, or organism contributes to an ecosystem, and are either prey,predator, or producer and create an interdependence on one another for survival. If an endangered species ends up extinct, then the whole ecosystem will suffer. In the words of the World Wildlife Fund, "When you remove one element from a fragile ecosystem, it has far-reaching and long-lasting effects on biodiversity." (thoughtco) For the case of the domesticated, we are ethically obliged because that animal relies on human beings. Before domestication, the animal could rely on itself, however after domestication, the animal relies on human and loses the ability to sustain itself in the wild. Finally, we are obliged to extend ethical treatment to animals that are being abused. There is no reason why an animal should lack so much moral and ethical treatment to the point that they are physically beaten. No animal, should have experience any form of abuse in their

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    A moral fact, according to communications scholar Wade Rowland in his book, Greed, Inc., is a claim by moral realists that there are moral facts, beyond simple opinions, comparable to scientific or material facts and must be true or wrong (not both) (Rowland 81). In this article, the BBC initially assumes that its definitions of animal rights and interests are a true universal concept that all humans accept, especially when it comes to killing the animal for food, and assumes that nearly all animal produce comes from an abusive factory or farm. However, some cultures, like the Canadian Inuit community at Clyde River in Nunavut, have a different approach to the issue of eating animals. For example, the Clyde community contends that hunting animals is part of a cooperative spiritual and physical balance of between humans and animals (seals); proper hunting (killing), cooking and sharing of the meat ensures that the animal’s spirit receives its respect; and eating animal meat heals their bodies and provides affordable nourishment for a good life (Borré 53). On the other hand, the BBC article argues that animals have the basic right (interest) to live, therefore ending animals’ lives violates this and other rights.…

    • 1545 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The land ethicist cares for the environment and the animal liberationist cares for sentience. In the environment, there is necessary suffering that needs to exist to preserve the biotic community. The land ethicist brings up an important concept of a keystone species which exemplify the need for keeping species even if it involves killing sentient beings. The keystone species life takes priority on the scale of importance this conflicts with animal liberationists again. Peter Singer would put the importance of cognitive ability over how important a being is to the environment.…

    • 1062 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Killing and taking the life of even one animal is nature’s duty to fulfill not the humans. Animals keep an ecosystem healthy, eating up all the carcasses and taking care of wastes that are harmful to our environment, which we depend on for our own beneficials. Taking the life of even one individual, which could’ve been a predator’s meal in contribution to the balancement of life, is like trading a quarter for five pennies- so meaningless. Humans have been factors and causes of extinction. Who says it can’t occur again or increase the chances of that extend of tragedy ?…

    • 1113 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    Ethics In Animal Testing

    • 1470 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Proponents of animal research want to argue that the avoidance of animals’ pain is not worth the suffering that humans endure; specifically when some human suffering can be prevented or treated with research using animals. “If a clinical research program will result in some procedure that has significant increases in well-being, then some suffering is justified” (Monaghan on Clinical Research, slide 36). This idea is skewed in animal testing. Yes, some of animal research has gone to benefit many humans and animals, but the fail rate of experiments at the costs of animals’ lives is just as great (Engel 4). The cost-benefit analysis regarding animal research has no good answer.…

    • 1470 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Obviously his experiment didn’t work out to well for him to prove his case, however the fact remains that he made powerful arguments against animal rights. In defense of both Kant and Descartes I would conclude that if all life is linked (as I believe it is), it is mankind’s inherited obligation to responsibly utilize the resources nature has provided us to survive. Both of their underlying positions ultimately passes the common sense test, taking all life into consideration each organism residing on earth…

    • 500 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Consequentialism Is Wrong

    • 1114 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes’ concept believed that the basic nature of human beings was to be greedy, selfish and cruel which can be seen in our everyday lives. Global warming, terrorism, poverty, gender inequality are just a few of the major issues faced in the world today. Sadly, us humans are the sole causes of these issues. This happens not because humans want to deliberately hurt the rest of the world, but due to the fact that it is in our nature to do what benefits us. Take damaging the environment for an example.…

    • 1114 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In the reading he mentions that we kill animals for food, clothing, and shelter but when it comes to testing in animals we think it isn 't right. To him one can 't be more justifiable then the other, which is why says we have an obligation to increase the total amount of animal research to protect human subjects and benefit future human patients.…

    • 1036 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He proposes the idea that the best way to preserve our environment is to be active and manage how much we invade what is left of the natural world. He uses examples of how policies put in place around the world have worked to prevent some populations of animals from going extinct. Rolston also makes a good point that the human population is rapidly growing too much and requiring humans to take land away from the natural world just for the sake of expansion not recognizing the diversity of the land. (Rolston 459-460). However, the points that Attfield criticizes makes it so Rolston’s argument for policies is not perfect and leaves things vague like his definition for development and what should be done about the humans’ overpopulation.…

    • 1006 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Basically, Sabin is stating that sacrificing animals for testing saves human lives. From a conflicting position, others insist that animal testing is inhumane and extremely cruel. In the words and ideas of Peter Singer, “It is a demand that we cease to regard the exploitation of other species as natural and inevitable,…

    • 1364 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Animal Welfare Act Essay

    • 829 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Introduction This paper explores the focus of animals owned as property. It discusses what harmful acts we do upon them such as being test subjects for the safety for humans, personal use, and consumption. An Organization named PETA was used to grow awareness and what people could do for animals and try to stop or benefit the animal in their temporary environment. The purpose of the Animal Welfare Act was to ensure animals some form of right since technically they do not have official rights because of not having characteristics as humans. I discuss an idea of animals being aware forming guilt to people and how society reacts for something was stopped because animals were not use in the formality for us.…

    • 829 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays