Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
In his article, All Animals Are Equal, Peter Singer uses the analogies from various civil rights movements to advocate for all animals equality, irrespective of their species. He claims that people should extend the fundamental equality principle to non-human animals (Singer, 1974). In justifying his assertions, Singer examines the moral foundation of equality ideology, which provides equal consideration of living beings interests. Indeed, he claims that the existence of unique differences between humans and non-humans does not empower one species over the other. Equal considerations for different beings help inspire diverse treatments and rights, thus strengthening the basic equality principle. Throughout the article, Singer urges individuals to reflect on the role of enjoyment, suffering, and sentience in defining all animals interests. Although it is challenging to equate human to non-human creatures interests due to their differences in rational thinking and needs, Singer argues that people should reject sexism, racism, and speciesism.
Singer utilizes three primary arguments to reinforce his conclusion that all animals should be accorded equal considerations. Firstly, he claims that using humanity as an index of awarding rights is subjective and promotes speciesism (Singer, 1974). Secondly, Singer highlights that bestowing equal rights to all people only considers the human characteristic. Finally, he emphasizes that sentience should be the only considered element in conferring human rights. Singer concludes that there is no moral justification for ignoring pain and suffering in defining animal rights based on the three assertions. In his view, the basic notion of equality is giving the same attention to all beings interests. All human beings and several non-human creatures have interests, and thus, engaging in speciesism or racism violates the equality principle. Therefore, all animals should be equal because the pain and suffering of any being should be harmoniously acknowledged, although rough comparisons might be apparent based on the intellectual capacities and differing interests.
Despite the rationality of Singers arguments, there are some critical objections. For instance, treating all animals equally would mean having the same rights. As a result, human beings would expect non-human creatures to think and make logical decisions rather than depending on their choices. Singer only places the responsibility on humans, and thus, the best approach is to treat animals as second-class beings in a particular sense to allow individuals to take care of them. Although children are human beings, their inability to make rational decisions enable their parents to perceive them as less mature beings, thus playing an active role in their development. Similarly, non-human animals cannot have equal rights as human beings and expect the latter to care about their welfare. Finally, contrary to Singers argument, there is a dire need for factual sameness based on the human characteristic to define interests equitably.
However, some claims in the objections are false on closer evaluation and do not defeat the primary argument. For example, Singer explicitly explains the equality principle, which does not necessarily require the entitlement of the same rights or treatments between human and non-human animals (Singer, 1974). Equals can either have similar or different rights as long as their interests are considered. Additionally, observing humans as superior creatures to non-human beings is an expression of bias based on speciesism. Lastly, as Singers describes in his article, biological characteristics should not be the only measure that can define animal rights, and thus, factual sameness does not express equality.
Singer raises essential concerns on the mistreatments of non-human creatures by human beings. Nearly all animals have interests, and it is significant to consider them, irrespective of the intellectual abilities of one being over the other. Animals also experience pain and suffering, making it irrational to ignore such predicaments to suit human needs and ambitions. Consequently, adhering to the equality principles fundamental requirement would help people appreciate that equals can have different rights based on their diverse interests, thus promoting fairness among all creatures.
Reference
Singer, P. (1974). All animals are equal. Philosophic Exchange, 5(1), 103-116. Web.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.