The Peter Singer: All Animals Are Not Equal

859 Words 4 Pages
All Animals are Not Equal Organizations like PETA work towards the betterment of the treatment of animals. In today's society animals are used in many horrific ways such as, food production and and the testing of medicine and other human products. Is this ok? The australian philosopher Peter Singer says it is not. He believes that we should end all use of animals in food production and any forms of testing. He argues that all animals are equal and should be treated as so. I disagree with Signer’s argument. In this essay, I will first discuss Singer’s argument and then discuss my reasons for why his argument is wrong. Signer starts his argument by saying that humans are speciesists. A speciesist is someone whose treatment of another living creature is predicated on species membership and physical differences. Signer compares the actions of a human to …show more content…
He defines a speciesist as someone who puts their species first and focuses mainly on the betterment of their species. He says that speciesism is wrong and that we need to change how we treat other species. If we go off of his definition of a speciesist, then we could in turn label all animals speciesists. We as humans understand and know that all animals can feel pain and suffering, but no other species can. A lion cares not for the well being of a gazelle. It does not think about whether or not the gazelle wants to be eaten. The lions only thought is to eat, survive, and reproduce. The main problem with Singer's point is that he uses the comparison of racism and speciesism to say that speciesism is wrong. I do not see what is wrong with speciesism. Speciesism is a part natural part of all life. All species focus on the survival of their own self. If all species focused more on the well being of others than themselves then the likelihood of the survival of their species lowers. This way of thinking is an essential part of the circle of life and is not

Related Documents