Introduction.
In this paper, I will be taking on Peter Singer’s argument against speciesism. I will be doing this by first presenting his argument in Section I, then follow up with clarifying any words that need to be disambiguated. Section II will consist of my objection to this point in effort to counter it. Section III will include a possible response Singer would give for this raised objection. My main argument for Singer’s argument against speciesism considers the order of nature.
Section I.
In his argument, Singer explains why it is he believes that humans and nonhumans should be treated equally. This is my interpretation of Singer’s argument against speciesism in premise-conclusion form:
1. Speciesism divides humans from nonhumans
2. Both humans and certain nonhumans have been found to feel pleasure and suffering
3. Beings that experience pleasure and suffering should be …show more content…
As the species that currently reigns “dominion” over the other species, we act as “trustees” to them on the global stage to act on their behalf. Whether the choices we make are the right ones, that is another issue altogether.
Conclusion:
In this paper, I have considered Peter Singer’s arguments on the wrongness of speciesism by explaining his points and moving forward to presenting my best argument against it. Speciesism is not only a factor of the human species, but within and in between other species as well. But consider this, are we the only ones to be able to cognitively decipher the wrongness of speciesism? To repeat my main argument, humans are the only ones capable of deep cognitive thought and are guided by more than instinct, but a moral compass. Speciesism is a natural part of interactions between species and it gives order to nature.
Word Count: