Peter Singer all Animals are Equal Main Points

Introduction

Peter Singer is a moral philosopher and a huge staple to the animal rights movement. Singer believes that a human should not be subjected to experimentation because a human has too much potential to offer the world, as do the animal species. According to Peter Singer, the following argument is that speciesism is a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species. Further support from this claim is that animal experimentation is so important that Peter Singer desires that we might be willing to perform it on the type of human infant that has the same conditions and brain function as the animal that would have been experimented on.

Singer’s reasoning is that animal experimentation cannot be justified in many ways, such as the important concern in defining how we may treat other living organisms that are not human beings is whether they undergo pain and that the discomfort of animals and humans deserve equal deliberations. This argument is based on the important issue of whether they feel the pain and suffering, not whether the subjects have rights or moral claims against other species.

Contrasting Views: Peter Singer vs. Carl Cohen

Fundamentally, it is immoral to use an animal in such a way that generates any kind of torture or suffering, as Peter Singer would justify. This awareness stems from the utilitarian view, claiming that our ambition of a lifetime is to take full advantage of happiness or contentment and lessen the chances of having pain. To attest to why we should give animals equal deliberation of benefits, Singers declares that “the capacity for suffering and enjoyment is a prerequisite for having interests at all.” Utilitarians criticize whether an action is moral or immoral based on the action’s consequences. Another might argue that Peter Singer’s viewpoint is Kantian because animals have a permanent worth; they shouldn’t be used to profit from human lives. Whether something is right or wrong doesn’t depend on its consequences but on having a sense of morality. While I differ with this idea, I do believe that there is an underlying importance that each species owns, making me an activist of speciesism. An example that Peter’s framework is under the utilitarian view is that animals would feel pain and suffering as even humans under the same circumstances when starved or even forced to do things they don’t want to do; this is hurting a living being’s autonomy. I will defend the claim that Peter Singer has a Utilitarian ethical framework because he claims that humans and animals deserve the same level of respect and happiness and to be pain-free when it comes to experimenting.

Carl Cohen would strongly disagree with Peter Singer’s views. Cohen is a keen scientist who experimented with bacteria. He argues that animals don’t have rights because having rights means animals can exercise against another. Cohen considers that animals cannot intellectually defend themselves like homo sapiens. Carl Cohen’s framework leans more to the Kantian views. He assumed things as right vs. wrong and did not regard the consequences to the animals during trials of experimentation. In the Utilitarian framework, it is seen as more right vs. wrong and considering the outcomes of the consequences. In this framework, you look for the greatest amount of good produced, and hurting an animal’s autonomy and causing pain does the opposite. Carl Cohen did not care about the outcome of these animals being experimented on, only the possible outcomes to benefit human beings.

Peter Singer Judges actions by the consequences they have as an outcome. In the film “Monkeys, Rats, and Me,” experiments were made on monkeys to help the lives of those disabled, specifically a little boy. Singer’s views were questioned when these experiments seemed problematic. Singer defends the monkeys to make sure they are being treated as humans would be if they were being trialed on. In my opinion, Peter would agree that these experiments would be morally impermissible because the monkeys were being mistreated and even starved for periods of time.

Conclusion

Singer only wants to avoid species in experiments. He wants animals to be treated in these tests as if they are humans themselves because Singer believes they are just as valuable. Carl Cohen, an avid scientist, on the other hand, would say these experimentations have a great outcome for the greater good and that these trials of experimentations would be morally permissible. It’s thought this way because Cohen stated that animals have no rights; therefore, you cannot violate them by testing them. The claim seems plausible to Cohen because he says animals lack a volume of moral judgment.

References

1. “Animal Liberation” by Peter Singer

2. “Practical Ethics” by Peter Singer

3. “The Life You Can Save: How to Do Your Part to End World Poverty” by Peter Singer

Did you like this example?

271

11