Peter Singer: All Animals are Equal


Peter Singer introduces his argument with the notion that we out to extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of us recognize should be extended to all members of own species. The basic principle of equality Singer focuses on is the equality of consideration. He states that equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights. He makes a distinction that the principle of equality amongst human beings is not based on actual equality amongst humans, but instead a notion of how we should treat humans. Peter believes that possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle humans to use another being for his or her ends. Instead, the capacity for suffering is a vital characteristic that gives a being the right to equal consideration. He states that if a being suffers, there is no moral justification to not take that suffering into consideration. Singer then draws a line in his argument by stating, if  a being is not capable of suffering or of experiencing pleasure, there is nothing to be taken into account of that being. The capacity that for suffering and enjoying things is a prerequisite for having interest at all, this is what makes a being’s interest meaningful.  He states that most of us humans are speciesist, and allow our interests to override the greater interest of member of other species. Singer provides us with some examples on how we are specieists, for examples by eating meat and the practice of experimenting on other species. He states that cruelty is acknowledged only when probability ceases. Singer believes that humans who possess brain damages, or mental illnesses are below the level of awareness and self-consciousness. He states that when discussing the problem of equality, it is possible to ignore the problem of mental defectives. Peter states that we take interests of members of our own species simply because they are members of our own species.
            A point I find troubling that Singer states is that there are measurable differences in terms of capabilities between races and sexes. It’s not clear which capabilities he’s referring to, but I find this to be a problematic statement because it could potentially group out specific races and sexes as being more capable than others. I agree that we live in a world where us humans do override our interests with those of other species. However I don’t agree that the choice of including meat in your diet, is an example of this specieism. In nature other animals, eat other animals in order to meet their dietary needs. A lion does not take into moral consideration the suffering of deer when it preys on it in order to survive for the day.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Kenneth Goodpaster: On Moral Consideration

Kenneth Goodpaster leads us through many principles and perceptions of different philosophers to tackle the overall question, “ to whom principles of morality apply?” In order to begin to develop an answer for this question, we must first understand the framework of moral consideration, and then proceed to the application of this framework. Goodpaster presents to us distinct viewpoints on the sorts of entities that can and should receive moral consideration. He believes that neither rationality nor the capacity to experience pleasure and pain are necessary conditions on moral considerability. Instead, the simple act of being alive, for Goodpaster is a plausible criterion in terms of moral consideration. He believes that the universe of moral consideration is more complex that just individual persons and their joys ad sorrows. Goodpaster begins to draw the distinction between rights and considerability. He believes that the notion of rights are more specific that those of considerbaili...
Read more

Class #23: Heather Davis and Zoe Todd, “On the Importance of a Date, or Decolonizing the Anthropocene”

Heather Davis and Zoe Todd point out the failure of the Anthropocene, as a name to be assigned to today’s epoch. The start date that is being chosen for the Anthropocene is mid twentieth century 1964.  They are drawing connections saying that the Anthropocene, is explicitly linked to the beginnings of colonization. By linking the Anthropocene with colonization, it draws attention to the violence at its core, and calls for the consideration of Indigenous philosophies and processes of Indigenous self-governance as a necessary political corrective, alongside the self-determination of other communities and societies violently impacted by the white supremacist, colonial, and capitalist logics instantiated in the origins of the Anthropocene. They feel that the Anthropocene betrays itself in its name: in its reassertion of universality, it implicitly aligns itself with the colonial era. Heather Davis and Zoe Todd propose a 1610 start date to coincide with colonization p...
Read more

Rolston, Duties to Ecosystems

Holmes Rolston talks about the separate duties that humans and organisms owe to the ecosystem through distinct lenses. He states that the apparent harmony in ecosystems is superficial. Like business, politics, and sports ecosystems thrive on competition. He talks about how environmental necessity involves conflict, selection pressure, niche fittedness, environmental support, etc. These section pressures will routinely drive adaptation and counter adaptation; therefor the ecosystem is forcing a check on competitions by forced cooperation.   He believes us humans need to see that, an ecosystem has no centeredness at all, and we ought to simply value organisms for their evolutionary journey and purpose. The members of the biotic community have no shared needs; each species is individualistic in the sense that they are focused on the needs of their own survival.   He further explains how an ecosystem is far from being a satisfactory community, instead it is rath...
Read more