Posted on November 18, by Maxwell Solasz 5 comments This week, we examine the works of Peter Singer and Tom Regan, both of which focus on animal rights. Although different, both arguments presented logical justifications for animal rights and had me wavering between my beliefs on the topic. Unfortunately, I found a couple of flaws with each argument and because of this, my stance on animal rights remains the same.
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.
|Animals and Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy||The Concepts of Beneficence and Benevolence The term beneficence connotes acts of mercy, kindness, and charity. It is suggestive of altruism, love, humanity, and promoting the good of others.|
|Consequentialism - Wikipedia||Margaret Sanger worked as a visiting nurse in the slums of the East Sidewhile her husband worked as an architect and a house painter. Already imbued with her husband's leftist politics, Margaret Sanger also threw herself into the radical politics and modernist values of pre-World War I Greenwich Village bohemia.|
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.
Some philosophers defend extremely demanding and far-reaching principles of obligatory beneficence. Peter Singer's theory is the most widely discussed example. , but his argument implies that morality sometimes requires us to invest heavily in rescuing needy persons in the global population, not merely at the level of local communities and. Jun 28, · Check out Bas Rutten's Liver Shot on MMA Surge: rutadeltambor.com Sam Harris, author of the New York Times bestsellers, The End of Faith, Letter to a. Singer provides a second counter-argument against the drowning child and the Bengal refugees. In the example of the drowning child, there is only one person to help but in the example of the refugees, there are millions upon millions to provide help.
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?
Humans and Nonhumans Have Equal Interests Not to Suffer As we have seen, the principle of equality is a principle which determines to take into equal consideration the interests of all beings affected by such a principle.Throughout this essay I will state Singer’s goal in writing this article while presenting his argument in relation to his view.
I then will give u counter - arguments to his points while providing Singer’s response. Feb 01, · An Argument for Animal Rights and an Analysis of Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation" Updated on February 2, then Singer's next goal is to prove that nonhumans have any interests at all.
is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interests of others" (8). To further prove his argument, Singer must now display that nonhuman Reviews: 1. Jun 28, · Check out Bas Rutten's Liver Shot on MMA Surge: rutadeltambor.com Sam Harris, author of the New York Times bestsellers, The End of Faith, Letter to a.
Argumentative Response to “the Singer Solution to World Poverty” Words Feb 10th, 3 Pages In Peter Singer’s article “The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” Singer suggests that Americans should donate all of the money they are spending on luxuries, not necessities, to the world’s poor.
Maxine Frank Singer (born February 15, ) is an American molecular biologist and science administrator.
She is known for her contributions to solving the genetic code, her role in the ethical and regulatory debates on recombinant DNA techniques (including the organization of the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA), and her leadership of. Arguments of Peter Singer PHI Mind and Machine Instructor: April 19, Singer’s goal in the article “Famine, Affluence and Morality” is to get people to think differently about famine relief, charity, and morality.
These are key issues that people need to be more aware of and act on them. People who are financially stable and well off should .