Summary Of Peter Singer's The Case For Animal Liberation

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