Singer has been a long time supporter of the welfare and the call for equality among all animals. In order for Singer to explain to us how he feels about non-human animal equality with humans he brings up the concept of sentience. Sentience is the ability to express happiness and/or pain. That is to say that if an animal is able to experience these emotions then they should be considered to be put on an equal spectrum with the rest of the animals(including humans). To be more specific, Singer separates animals into two "categories" which are "lower" and "higher" animals. "Higher" animals are those that have sentience and are able to have a sense of one's one existence and desire to keep living it (i.e. apes, primates. marine mammals, adult
…show more content…
As explained before that not only humans should be categorized on a different level than other sentient beings but on equal levels Singer explains his reasoning for including non-human animals. A key argument against non-human animal having moral significance is that they are unlike humans and lack the intellectual ability as to be on an equal moral significance level as humans. He answers this by comparing it to sexual and racial discrimination. The same way we see the irrational views that a racist or sexist has Singer sees in people who think that non-human animals have no moral significance. In today's society it is very unlikely that we would not take into consideration someone's interests based on them being a different gender or race why limit ourselves to that? In other words, we would not negate any service to another person that is not literally equal to ourselves. Everyone has different biological traits whether it be skin tone, sexuality, or mental capacity yet we all see each other as equal human beings, why can't animals be a part of that? It is important to note that Singer does not want the same right for animals as humans but that it would depend on the animal itself the same way men don't have the right to an abortion because they physically don't have the ability to have one. This extension of equality to other animals in Singer's eyes is seen as the moral obligation that we as animals …show more content…
The first point that Cohen argues is the lack of rights that non-human animals realistically have. Since we are "morally auto-nomous" meaning the ability to set and enforce moral laws for ourselves and animals lack this ability they therefore have no rights (Cohen 566). In response to comparing ourselves to someone who is racist Cohen is appalled due to the fact that racism does not have any moral foundation and argues that because we are morally auto-nomous and live in communities where we reason with others based on our morality, in contrast to animals, we do have rights. This brings in the second point of animal testing for the better of human progression. In his view we cannot view animal experimentations as morally unjust against because if it weren't for the every so often infliction of pain and suffering to them our current modern medicine would not be
As explained before that not only humans should be categorized on a different level than other sentient beings but on equal levels Singer explains his reasoning for including non-human animals. A key argument against non-human animal having moral significance is that they are unlike humans and lack the intellectual ability as to be on an equal moral significance level as humans. He answers this by comparing it to sexual and racial discrimination. The same way we see the irrational views that a racist or sexist has Singer sees in people who think that non-human animals have no moral significance. In today's society it is very unlikely that we would not take into consideration someone's interests based on them being a different gender or race why limit ourselves to that? In other words, we would not negate any service to another person that is not literally equal to ourselves. Everyone has different biological traits whether it be skin tone, sexuality, or mental capacity yet we all see each other as equal human beings, why can't animals be a part of that? It is important to note that Singer does not want the same right for animals as humans but that it would depend on the animal itself the same way men don't have the right to an abortion because they physically don't have the ability to have one. This extension of equality to other animals in Singer's eyes is seen as the moral obligation that we as animals …show more content…
The first point that Cohen argues is the lack of rights that non-human animals realistically have. Since we are "morally auto-nomous" meaning the ability to set and enforce moral laws for ourselves and animals lack this ability they therefore have no rights (Cohen 566). In response to comparing ourselves to someone who is racist Cohen is appalled due to the fact that racism does not have any moral foundation and argues that because we are morally auto-nomous and live in communities where we reason with others based on our morality, in contrast to animals, we do have rights. This brings in the second point of animal testing for the better of human progression. In his view we cannot view animal experimentations as morally unjust against because if it weren't for the every so often infliction of pain and suffering to them our current modern medicine would not be