Argumentative Essay On All Animals Are Equal By Peter Singer

The Ultimate Right The ever-lasting clash of interests between man and beast, man of one color and man of another has been going on forever. It is hard to recognize that “All Animals are Equal” simply because everyone is selfish. People will always promote the survival of their own, and have prejudice to a different color, or species simply because they want to promote their self interest. Though all the discrimination arguments should be handled through utilitarianism: one life equals one life, no matter of species, more often than not humans utilize egoism to make their arguments. I believe that Singer is right in his argument because ultimately, life is not a game and everyone only has one chance. Whether it be a homo-sapiens, a canis-familiaris,
every single species only has one life and saying one is worth more than the other is speciesis`t and irrational. Sentience plays a big role in Singer’s argument because it presents an ideology of the value of life. People eating other animals simply for the purpose of taste are cruel because the amount of suffering that “a piece of steak” had to go through before this cow became a piece of steak is unimaginable to a human being. Many disregard it, and claim that simply because these species can’t process thoughts the same way we do their lives do no matter. Under this argument, it would be okay to utilize people that are born with very low mental capacities as food, simply because of the taste. One of the arguments against Singer’s view is that other species because of their lack of understanding of the universe and their primitive brain functions are not capable of living satisfactory lives and there for being simply a means to an end and not an end in themselves.
Peter Singer debunked this argument with phenomenal finesse in my opinion by bringing attention back to the understanding of happiness and satisfaction. Though it may be true that cows, dogs, and horses are not capable of the same levels of life as we are, they are certainly capable of leading satisfactory or unsatisfactory lives. If they can feel pain and they are capable of displaying fear, why would they not be able to understand pleasure and happiness? I think his ideology of imbeciles in the spectrum of discrimination is pure genius. Most people are sensitive and kind to those with disabilities, but then why are people mean and cruel to those of different skin color. They can bring about the same value and have the same feelings and the same need for love and
happiness. The main issue here is farmed meat.
People that fight for human equality and sex equality, but gorge on steak and chicken meat are simply immoral hypocrites. However it is not the consumer that is always at fault. In this day and age, it is mostly the producer. The majority of the populace has no idea how these animals are treated and how low their quality of life really is. The best way to solve this would be to have everyone who wants to eat meat have to kill to get their own meat. The fear and panic and the pain witnessed in the animals might be enough to get the majority to understand that life is life no matter in what shape or color. This is a justification for the hypocrites, most are not aware of the
problem. To answer the question of how can people consume factory meat even after grasping the conceptuality of life as a unit and of the fair consideration of the species is simple: ignorance. People believe that consuming farmed meat is a life cycle. It is like when predators eat prey, like when a cat consumes a mouse. Most people are uneducated scientifically and don’t realize that humans are genetically herbivorous. We cannot consume raw meat for a reason: we do not have the proper canines. Though meat is a great way to get the right nutritional value of protein, it is also unfair to call it the cycle of life, since there are ways of acquiring the right amount of nutrients from sources that do not require the cessation of any pain. In this case I would like to point out that those who believe we have the right to harm other animals, whether it be through consumption or testing simply because we are superior beings are irrational. The best way to attack them would be with philosophy of duty of care. As complex creatures as we are, we should be able to grasp the fact that we are truly hurting those animals and since we can come up with alternate sources for energy in our metabolic systems we have the duty to as superior beings, just like in our cultures we have the duty to care for the weak, the young and the disabled. To conclude discrimination in any form, whether it is: specialism, racism, nationalism, it is immoral because all sentient life is equal. All animals and all races experience pain equally, though humans have a better understanding of what causes pain, all animals are scared of heights because they know falling hurts, all animals and humans are startled by loud noises because the signify imminent danger. All of this is because all animals and all races have one life, even though some people believe that cats have nine.