POST #10: Singer's View on Animal Rights
Topic: How does Singer define ethics and how does he apply this definition to the area of animal rights? Make sure to discuss key ideas such as utilitarianism, speciesism, etc. Finally, what is Lane’s neuro-ethical argument for animal rights? Does it differ in any way from Singer’s? Explain.
Singer’s View on Animal Rights
Peter Singer is an Australian Humanist and philosopher and the author of book Practical Ethics. He is an expert in the area of practical ethics, and he is famous for approaching the ethical issues in the area from a utilitarian perspective. Besides supporting human rights, Peter Singer is also a strong advocate of animal rights.
Applying his utilitarian views on animals, Singer wrote books such as Animal Liberation with the intention to support the movement of animal liberation. The book Animal Liberation is written entirely for animal rights. The book Practical Ethics is a comprehensive work of Singer’s perspectives on ethics. Since animal rights is one of Singer’s major focus, Singer has included a few chapters on the topic of animal liberation in Practical Ethics.
Singer’s utilitarian ethics regards an action “as right if it produces as much or more of an increase in the happiness of all affected by it than any alternative action, and wrong if it does not” (Practical Ethics, 3). In chapter three of Practical Ethics, Singer discusses the topic of “equality for animals”. Being a utilitarian and advocate of equality, Singer supports the minimization of pain in all beings, including animals.
Singer argues that while people commonly reject racism, they accept “speciesism”. In Singer’s view, this general acceptance of such an obvious prejudice is a major setback of the quest for true equality. Just like how racism is defined as the discrimination on the grounds that a person belongs to a certain race, Singer defines speciesism as the discrimination on the grounds that a being belongs to a certain species. Therefore, Singer calls people who discriminate against animals “speciesists”.
Singer believes that the interests of all beings capable of suffering should be worthy of equal consideration. “If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration,” comments Singer (Practical Ethics, 57). Singer’s view clearly states that the making or allowing animals’ suffering is simply morally wrong because all beings are equal.
To accentuate his argument that animals are the same as some humans, Singer made a lot of comparisons between animals with infants and severely retarded humans in his book. He argues that “nonhuman animals and infants and severely intellectually disabled humans are in the same category” (Practical Ethics, 60) because they all show equally diminished mental capacity and intelligence in comparison with the majority of normal adult humans.
David Lane is another utilitarian writer who urges people to be vegetarians. He argues that humans are socialized to emphasize with beings of their own species but not with other species, meaning animals. People also do not eat animals that show higher brain functions such as apes and dolphins because they are considered highly evolved species just like humans. However, Lane says the common, less evolved species of animals have central nervous systems, sophisticated receptors, and inter-neuronal communicative powers, and the capacity to feel pain, too.
Lane’s neuro-ethical argument to promote vegetarianism is very similar to Singer’s argument to not take lives of animals. Both Singer and Lane are utilitarian philosophers who support animal rights. Their arguments are both based on the grounds that animals are as likely to feel pain as humans do. Nevertheless, Singer’s argument is still a little more comprehensive in that he incorporates more ethical standpoints than Lane.
Singer’s View on Animal Rights
Peter Singer is an Australian Humanist and philosopher and the author of book Practical Ethics. He is an expert in the area of practical ethics, and he is famous for approaching the ethical issues in the area from a utilitarian perspective. Besides supporting human rights, Peter Singer is also a strong advocate of animal rights.
Applying his utilitarian views on animals, Singer wrote books such as Animal Liberation with the intention to support the movement of animal liberation. The book Animal Liberation is written entirely for animal rights. The book Practical Ethics is a comprehensive work of Singer’s perspectives on ethics. Since animal rights is one of Singer’s major focus, Singer has included a few chapters on the topic of animal liberation in Practical Ethics.
Singer’s utilitarian ethics regards an action “as right if it produces as much or more of an increase in the happiness of all affected by it than any alternative action, and wrong if it does not” (Practical Ethics, 3). In chapter three of Practical Ethics, Singer discusses the topic of “equality for animals”. Being a utilitarian and advocate of equality, Singer supports the minimization of pain in all beings, including animals.
Singer argues that while people commonly reject racism, they accept “speciesism”. In Singer’s view, this general acceptance of such an obvious prejudice is a major setback of the quest for true equality. Just like how racism is defined as the discrimination on the grounds that a person belongs to a certain race, Singer defines speciesism as the discrimination on the grounds that a being belongs to a certain species. Therefore, Singer calls people who discriminate against animals “speciesists”.
Singer believes that the interests of all beings capable of suffering should be worthy of equal consideration. “If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration,” comments Singer (Practical Ethics, 57). Singer’s view clearly states that the making or allowing animals’ suffering is simply morally wrong because all beings are equal.
To accentuate his argument that animals are the same as some humans, Singer made a lot of comparisons between animals with infants and severely retarded humans in his book. He argues that “nonhuman animals and infants and severely intellectually disabled humans are in the same category” (Practical Ethics, 60) because they all show equally diminished mental capacity and intelligence in comparison with the majority of normal adult humans.
David Lane is another utilitarian writer who urges people to be vegetarians. He argues that humans are socialized to emphasize with beings of their own species but not with other species, meaning animals. People also do not eat animals that show higher brain functions such as apes and dolphins because they are considered highly evolved species just like humans. However, Lane says the common, less evolved species of animals have central nervous systems, sophisticated receptors, and inter-neuronal communicative powers, and the capacity to feel pain, too.
Lane’s neuro-ethical argument to promote vegetarianism is very similar to Singer’s argument to not take lives of animals. Both Singer and Lane are utilitarian philosophers who support animal rights. Their arguments are both based on the grounds that animals are as likely to feel pain as humans do. Nevertheless, Singer’s argument is still a little more comprehensive in that he incorporates more ethical standpoints than Lane.
posted by Mavis Chao at 10:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home