Peter Singer All Animals Are Equal Analysis

The lingering presence of guilt when most folks are presented with a dish that has formed from the basis of an animal seems to have only increased with the mounting knowledge of how a large number of animals are treated, whether it is for product testing or for human consumption. The expectation that animals, especially those raised in a slaughterhouses, live a tranquil, cruelty-free life would seem a bit far fetched to me, yet it is difficult to deny that the deplorable conditions shown in exploitation documentaries will make even the most seasoned barbeque pit master question if their bulk purchases of meat is ethical. In addition, many cosmetic companies have completely eradicated and condemned the practice of testing the safety and efficacy
Australian professor and animal rights advocate Peter Singer states this well in this essay “All Animals Are Equal”: The same form of discrimination may be observed in the widespread practice of experimenting on other species in order to see if certain substances are safe for human beings, or to test some psychological theory about the effect of severe punishment on learning, or to try out various new compounds just in case something turns up” (Singer 6). All major United States cosmetic companies have reportedly ceased animal testing as of 2016. However, there are many animals beyond the US, and unless humans see to a collective effort for change, it is unlikely to happen. An example of having sympathy and the potential for people to recognize their transgressions is well illustrated on page 34: “Sympathy has everything to do with the subject and little to do with the object ... There are people who have the capacity to imagine themselves as someone else, there are people who have no such capacity ... and there are people who have the capacity but choose not to exercise it. ... There are no bounds to the sympathetic imagination.” There is reason to believe, sadly, that the outlook is rather bleak. For starters, if we are looking to the future, let us first rethink the past. Why would some animals be offered some protections while others are offered none? Why are the protections that we offer so sparse, so limited, and so laxly enforced? And the most important question of all is this: if we were to outlaw all forms of animal cruelty, could any animal industries continue to exist? The truth is that they could not. There is no animal product, no animal exhibit, and no animal test that doesn’t inherently violate the basic principle that animals deserve the right to live their natural existence without the interference of humans. This also leads me to