You describe the discrepancies between Regan and Singer opinions on animal rights as compared to your own. Do you mean that animals are a part of these lower values? Your next objection to singer is based on his idea of equal consideration in dealing with a cat attacking the child.
Animals Should be Granted Rights in Respect to Their Nature In chapter one of Animal LiberationPeter Singer starts off by asserting that all animals are equal; this includes human animals such as man and woman, as well as nonhuman animals such as beasts.
In doing so, he is not making the claim that these animals are equal in their capacities, such as reasoning, appearance, ability, or opportunities. Nor is he claiming that these animals should receive equal rights or treatments if he succeeds in proving the equality of such animals.
Rather, Singer is arguing for equal consideration of the nature of such animals. For, as he points out, it would be futile to say that man and woman are equal if we were considering their capacity to bear a child or have an abortion.
Giving a man the right to have an abortion is like giving a fish the right to breathe air out of the water. It is an unnecessary right that should not go to the man, for it is not in his capacity to truly fulfill such a right. Equally, it is untrue to say that humans have equal ability when it comes to achieving something in the world.
Some men and women are born to be athletes, some writers, and others laborers. It is not the case that most humans cannot perform these tasks, but rather that some humans will be better-suited to perform these tasks naturally. He notes that today, at least in places similar to the United States and Britain, most people accept that all humans should be considered equal.
However, there are those who believe differently; that their race or gender is superior to others. Those who believe in their superiority based on skin color or racial background are called racists.
Similarly, those who believe their gender to be superior to the opposite gender are called sexists. When formulating his argument, Singer takes the equal consideration a step further, adding that all animals both human and nonhuman alike should be considered equal.
Those who do not believe in this notion, that their species is superior to another species, are called speciesists. We have found, through considerable contemplation and evaluation, that one race or gender is not superior to another.
When considering the equality of human beings, one must go past the tests which consider intelligence, moral capacity, physical strength, or similar matters. For if we test on such levels, it will not be difficult to find that humans are not equal in these respects.
Furthermore, we cannot be sure that these differences are innate or if they have been taught to these humans. Consider a scholar in the United States and a warrior from Africa.
One will be better at mathematics while the other will be better at hunting and fighting. This difference is mainly from the environment in which the human being was raised. If the humans switched environments, they theoretically would change what they excelled at. If humans can theoretically excel equally when given the opportunity to do so, we should consider the equality of humans not as something that comes from skill or place of origin, but as an ability or capacity to fulfill or be something in their own respect.
Therefore, Singer pursues the principle of equality of human beings not as a description of an alleged actual equality among humans, but rather how we should treat humans Singer 5.
This principle does not suggest that a man has the right to an abortion, for a man cannot fulfill this right.
This principle gives rights to humans in their own respect; a boy in the United States should be taught mathematics and a boy in Africa should be taught hunting, if this is what their society compels them to do or become. The principle of equality among humans determines to make humans prosper and fulfill whatever they are best capable of in order to achieve the most of the life they live.
Source The Principle of Equality Extends to All Beings As Singer has stated, his argument is not for the equality of human beings, but for the equality of all beings--both human and nonhuman. Those who agree to equality when considering race or sex are not uncommon.
However, the true dilemma arises when considering the relationship of equality between humans and nonhumans. Those who do not agree that nonhumans should be equally considered to humans are called speciesists. The groundwork for this argument is that if possessing intelligence of a higher degree does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit nonhumans for the same purpose?The Peter Singer Controversy By Dr.
Steven Best His more than two dozen books include two international best-sellers, Animal Liberation () and Practical Ethics (), which have been translated in 15 languages and taught in courses throughout the world.
Peter Singer. April 5, Issue. Animals, Men and Morals Animals, Men and Morals is a manifesto for an Animal Liberation movement. The contributors to the book may not all see the issue this way. however, that the case for Animal Liberation is based on the analogy with racism and no more.
On the contrary, Animals. Feb 01, · In chapter one of Animal Liberation, Peter Singer starts off by asserting that all animals are equal; this includes human animals such as man and woman, as well as nonhuman animals such as beasts.
In doing so, he is not making the claim that these animals are equal in their capacities, such as reasoning, appearance, ability, or alphabetnyc.coms: 1. The chapters which detail the animal suffering and the reasons for it, in both cases, are difficult reading as Singer acknowledges.
However, as he says, if the animals must endure the suffering, the least we can do is be informed. Animal Liberation is the book that started the modern animal rights movement. Peter Singer, the author, is an Australian philosopher. He is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and laureate professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and /5(K).
First published in , Animal Liberation was a philosophical bombshell. It forever changed the conversation about our treatment of animals.
It made people—myself included–change what we ate, what we wore, and how we perceived animals.