Peter Singer All Animals Are Equal Summary
Anacely Gallardo
HUM 190
DeCoster
15 December 2014 Peter Singer, a well know philosopher, notes that “A liberation movement demands an expansion of our moral horizons and an extension or reinterpretation of the basic moral principle of equality.” We, humans, think that we are superior to others, not only to other humans, but to other species as well. As the superior race we think we are, we tend to use and manipulate animals to our convenience. We play with them and we use them as the subjects in experiments. Most importantly, we eat them, and even wear their skin. All for the purpose of benefiting our race. Some think of it as being morally justifiable and others, like me, think that it is not morally justified. There is no "superior" species. To think otherwise is to be no less prejudiced than racists or sexists. …show more content…
Singer’s thesis is that “We should extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of us recognize should be extended to all members of our own species.” No one has a right to benefit as a result of violating another's rights, whether that "other" is a human being or some other animal. Peter Singer, in his book “Animal Liberation”, states that the basic principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration (Why).Nowadays, the US animal husbandry system remains morally unjustifiable because the animals’ well-being is still not taken into consideration, they are treated as being less superior to others. When they two, have a life of their own that is of importance to them apart from their utility to us. In comparison with the EU nations, the United States currently has relatively little legislation aimed at regulating farm animal welfare
HUM 190
DeCoster
15 December 2014 Peter Singer, a well know philosopher, notes that “A liberation movement demands an expansion of our moral horizons and an extension or reinterpretation of the basic moral principle of equality.” We, humans, think that we are superior to others, not only to other humans, but to other species as well. As the superior race we think we are, we tend to use and manipulate animals to our convenience. We play with them and we use them as the subjects in experiments. Most importantly, we eat them, and even wear their skin. All for the purpose of benefiting our race. Some think of it as being morally justifiable and others, like me, think that it is not morally justified. There is no "superior" species. To think otherwise is to be no less prejudiced than racists or sexists. …show more content…
Singer’s thesis is that “We should extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of us recognize should be extended to all members of our own species.” No one has a right to benefit as a result of violating another's rights, whether that "other" is a human being or some other animal. Peter Singer, in his book “Animal Liberation”, states that the basic principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration (Why).Nowadays, the US animal husbandry system remains morally unjustifiable because the animals’ well-being is still not taken into consideration, they are treated as being less superior to others. When they two, have a life of their own that is of importance to them apart from their utility to us. In comparison with the EU nations, the United States currently has relatively little legislation aimed at regulating farm animal welfare