Summary Of Peter Singer's The Case For Animal Liberation

Superior Essays
Animal liberation nowadays are one of the most contentious issues. There has been numerous arguments about whether or not if animals do have rights. Many philosophers have argued and came up with several conclusions by considering a variety of standpoints and presenting their arguments. In Peter Singer’s article “The Case for Animal Liberation”, has several good points which show us that everyone have the responsibilities to protect animal rights. Singer’s argument in his essay gives us a great support to the argument in terms of morally equal. In contrast, “The Case Against Animal Rights” by a philosophy professor at University of Michigan, Carl Cohen; he believes that animals can’t have rights therefore all the medical researches or experiments …show more content…
Peter Singer gives out the example of women 's rights and compares it with the arguments of animal rights. He questions if the society accepts the women’s right movement then why can’t the society also let the animals have it too. He says that his point of view is about the cruelty in the human world against the nonhuman world. He wants us all to expand our principles of equality to other living things. He argues that no one can refuse the idea of expanding except for those who are selfish and want to save the privileges of the exploiting group. Although expanding this principle can have problems because human beings are different from animals. He still tries to prove that there are no boundaries for extending the principles to nonhuman living things. Using the example of the right for abortions that only women can do but men obviously can’t. Singer’s showing that there are inevitable reasons when we can’t treat the subgroups in a big group the same with each other and grants them the same right due to distinct differences. Singer introduces Betham’s view on the aspect of most people look down on animals just because they are not humans. Singer believes that we are privileged humans and that is what we only know and what we are comfortable …show more content…
He agrees that we really need to increase the experiment amount to avoid putting human lives in danger because the increase in life expectancy , decrease in pain or deaths, the quality of human life all depends on such those research or experiments. Although Cohen does acknowledge the existence of speciesism, however he does not agree that it is similar to racism or sexism as Singer puts it. He argues that Singer’s arguments are invalid because there is no moral difference between races or sexes. Nonetheless, he believes that there is a moral difference between humans and animals that doesn’t grant rights to animals but it does allow humans to use animals for their

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    It is considered very unethical to use a human as a test subject in an experiment even for biomedical research, so animals are used. By simply accepting the use of animals in tests over the option of using humans, we are considered Speciests. If humans viewed animals as equals or as valuable as humans, animals would not be used as test subjects. This is a prime example of Speciesism, because we favor the human population by protecting them from being used in biomedical research. The reasoning behind Speciesism seems to be that humans have deeper…

    • 716 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He points out that humans really are not equal in every way; some are more intelligent or physically stronger than others. Because of this he says that equality among humans should not be based on an actual so-called alikeness, as it has been with the existence of racism and sexism, but rather equality should be an instruction of how we should treat all humans. Regardless of intelligence or strength, humans can feel and know what it is to suffer. Singer upholds that we should apply this same definition of equality to non-human animals that have the capacity to feel suffering. Equality should not be based on the ability to think rationally or talk, but on the ability to suffer, which, he points out, the animals that we eat and experiment on are capable of feeling.…

    • 967 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    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.…

    • 739 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Others like the animal welfare doesn’t oppose to all in vivo research using animals, they stand against inhumane and unnecessary use of animals and fight to eliminate the pain and suffering of animals for cosmetics purposes. Even though both scientists and Animal right Activist believe that experience can cause distress in animals, scientist argue that they understand that distress in animals, can seriously affect the results of the study. Hence most research do not involve painful procedures or the pain is alleviated with analgesic or anesthetic drugs. In other words They claim that experiments are designed to minimize the suffering of animal. With all these controversies surrounding this issue, Animal testing…

    • 1439 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    Peter Singer Animal Testing

    • 2406 Words
    • 10 Pages

    Peter Singer, author of ‘Animal Liberation,’ argued that animals are able to feel pain to the same extent as humans, and should therefore be treated with equal moral concern. Singer argues that since animals have the capacity to experience pain, human beings have a moral requirement not to inflict pain or allow the infliction of pain on creatures. 13 However, numerous people still believe that if human diseases can be cured through research found through animal experimentation, the procedures are justified. These people argue that the benefits of the experiments outweigh the harm to the animal subjects. 14 Nevertheless, this viewpoint does not take into account the fact that animals and humans are morally equal.…

    • 2406 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Can animals even work, cook, clean, or even talk, think about it. Giving animals the same rights as we have would just be ignorant. I understand that people want companies to treat animals with more respect which is acceptable, but to give them rights that will just change humanity forever. Humans are use to processed foods and they know what they’re eating so to switch it up would not make sense. The film Blackfish tries to convince the audience that organizations like Seaworld hold wild animals back from having a good life.…

    • 727 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Leaver Culture Analysis

    • 1493 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Our conscience and intellect separates us from other animals, but we are still animals and connected to nature. If we disrupt the natural laws, then we see ourselves as more than the rest of the planet. We put our own worth on a pedestal, and undermine the consequences that we have with our tunnel vision views. Singer and Regan do not acknowledge that humans are animals, and we can also cause our extinction. While the rights view tells us how to treat animals with their own worth and to leave wild animals alone, it also fails to acknowledge how if we were truly equal we would help a dying breed.…

    • 1493 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved 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

    As the author mentioned, by looking at characteristics that all humans and animals possess would change this kind of thinking. From this point of view, people would see other species as equals. However, philosophers often do not acknowledge this kind of thinking by discerning differences such as rationality and morality between humans and other animal species. If we would start killing other humans for pleasure like we kill animals, it would completely immoral, but that does not appear to be the case when it comes to animals, even though it should, because philosophers cannot accept that humans and other animal species can be or should be…

    • 816 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Another point he makes is that animal rights activists place more value on animals than they do on humans (Locke 2). Locke asserts that only creatures that think and make choices have right (1). He is insisting that humans are the only beings that are able to think and make choices. If this is the case, some “humans” are excluded from this statement, as they can’t survive and prosper by themselves, such as; mentally disabled people, infants, and senior citizens…

    • 810 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays