Comm Arts II: Before class Wednesday be sure to read pages 1-23 in Peter Singer’s influential book Animal Liberation. Remember that the idea here is not simply to discuss whether Singer’s animal-rights argument is right or wrong, but to analyze how he goes about making that argument. That is, part of the idea is to pay attention to Singer’s rhetoric. You’ll hear a lot more about rhetoric as the course goes on.
For now, however, let’s forget about rhetoric and focus on the argument itself as it has been developed so far — such as the idea that “all animals are equal.” Notice that Singer is not arguing that all animals are the same in the sense of “having equal abilities” (which is obviously false) or “deserving equal treatment” (which probably strikes most of us as absurd).
Instead, Singer is arguing that all animals merit equal consideration of their interests.
Different kinds of animals can have very different interests. Some animals might conceivably have no interests at all. As Singer writes, “The basic principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration. Equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights” (2, my italics).
So, maybe we’re not convinced that we should all be vegetarians — but do we agree with Singer so far?
What about the idea that we must “avoid speciesism,” which is to say, “we must allow that beings who are similar in all relevant respects have a similar right to life — and mere membership in our own biological species cannot be a morally relevant criterion for this right” (19)?
Tuesday, January 13
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
The way Singer approaches the subject of equality for animals is in a very intelligent way. He connects historical events and events still happening today together by telling the reader that human rights of women were not always the rights women have now. He tells the reader about how it was not fair for women to be discriminated against and how there is no certain gender that is better than the other. Singer goes further to say that race has nothing to do with superiority either. Then he made us wonder why people do the things to animals that we do. Is it because they are a different species? Shouldn’t a different species be equal as well? They still feel pain; that is plain when they are yelping from someone burning a piece of metal into their skin. Singer explains that animals, just as humans are living things and feel just as we do. Using examples like kicking a rock doesn’t do anything because the rock doesn’t feel it. If you were to kick a mouse it feels pain so it has interests to not feel the pain. This shows that since they have interests like we do they should be treated equal because they are living thinking beings just as us. Singer’s argument on equality was a very strong point to make.
Nice, PK. There's a term sometimes used to describe the way rights have been extended to more and more groups: "the expanding circle of rights." At one point you have people arguing, in essence, "Sure, black men should have equal rights--but women? No way!" Later, it's "Well, OK, black people and women should have equal rights, but gay people? No way!" Now it's "Sure, black people and women and gay people should have equal rights, but animals?..." We're continually arguing over how much to expand the circle (that is, who should be included in it) but over time the circle keeps getting bigger and bigger.
I cant agree with singer in his claim that all "beings' should be equal. Sure all living things can feel pain and have a sense of rational but when equality comes in to play the Human beings are rulers. In refernece to what it says in the bible I quote from Genesis 1:24-28 (paraphrased). "God made all the fish and wildlife of the earth and made man to subdue all creation." This does not refute the fact that all beings seek out ways to make pain less prominant in their life, it just gives a whole new side to say that whatever we humans choose to do with the wildlife of this earth is a chioce to be made. God also says that making choices to preserve this beauty and choose to do the humane thing to animals is also a rightous thing to do. Equality can not be dispersed to the non-human beings in this world because God gave man the superiority to rule, not man and animal.
I can't agree with Singer when he claims that all beings should be treated as equal. Yes,all things that are living can feel pain. But animals were not only put here to be our companions but to also supply us with a food source. Everything in nature kills to eat and survive. We are simply at the top of the food chain.
i feel that Singer is wrong. the were all animals, but have diffrent ways of liveing. Humans control the world so were at the top. we do things to animals to make out lives better. experimenting on animals that are already over populated, to me is an ok thing to do.In all reality we do the things we do, in doing this it's just a cirle of life. everyone benifits from it.
I can agree with most of what Singer says about most humans being speciesists. I believe that animals do feel pain, and i believe that the way slaughter house's keep their animals before they kill them is cruel. Even though i might not agree with some of the speciesists out there, i am still going to eat other animals.
I do not agree with Singer's idea that every being should be treated equal for many reasons. We as humans vote for other humans to be superior to us (the president). The president is not treated like we are treated he has special treats. For example we do not get security to protect us etc. In animals the lion is one of the most important one because of his strength but he still eats other animals. Where is the equality in that? They have to survive just like us, we need to eat to survive so why can animals eat each other but we can't eat them. What about the dangerous animals? should they be treated equal as well?. Animals do have feelings I agree on that but they do not have enough understanding to be treated like humans. You cannot tell a dog that you are not going to hurt him, to not bite you because they will still do it since they do no understand.
I agree with Singer thus far in the book. I believe that a rabbit derserves just as much consideration as one's dog. Just because a rabbit is seen as less lifeless because it can not wag it's tail to show us it's happy, or because it can't chase a stick and bring it back to us does not mean it's life is not as important as any other animal's.
I cant agree with singer. Animals have been put here on earth just like us. diffrent animals are treated diffrent everywhere. In Asia do you think dogs are just pets? I just think that everything happens for a reason.
JKAL
I have a hard time with this book not in a reading sense but in the fact that I have two opinions on the subject and will find it hard to pick one side of the arguement. i may choose to write about both sides of the issue. artisfun...
Sure, all things are created equal in a sense, however, we can't all be as selfless as God. Therefore, resulting to being a vegetarian might be going to some extremes for some; as well as gays, blacks, or women being equal for other people. It all depends on how people put it into their own perspective.
Peter Singer goes buy the saying that we are not equal and we humans treat people unfarly. For example, being a woman is diffrent a man get paid more than the woman just for the woman being a woman and thats unfair. And thats what peter singer is pointing out about animals.
Post a Comment