Peter Singer Argument
1. In this paper I will argue that Singer is wrong to claim that human suffering and animal suffering should be given equal consideration. He claims that human animals and non-human animals with vertebrae experience pain and suffering in the same way. (41)
2. In “Animal Liberation”, Peter Singer argues that human suffering and animal suffering should be given equal consideration. He believes that a lot of our modern practices are speciesist, and that they hold our best interest above all else. The only animals that we give equal consideration are humans. He questions our reasonings for giving equal consideration to all members to our species, because, some people are more superior than others, in terms of intelligence or physical strength. Humans value themselves over …show more content…
He states that non-human animals are farmed for food, experimented on, and we as humans fail to acknowledge the suffering that these animals go through, because we are too caught up in our own ‘selfish’ behavior. Overall, his main point is that from a moral standpoint, humans should reconsider our modern practices, and give all sentient non-human animals equal consideration. He suggests that we all adopt vegetarian diets, and only conduct experiments on non-human animals when it would do less harm than good. (205)
3. My argument against Singer is that there is a difference between how humans and nonhuman animals suffer. I am in no way trying to devalue animal lives or say that it is just for us to be killing them in the mass amounts that we are. However, it is something that is difficult to compare. This is because humans have a deeper level of understanding and more of an ability to mentally suffer. The author of “The Uniqueness of Human Suffering” reminds us how suffering, like many other emotions, are hard to define since they are abstract and belong to a class of concepts. However, they explain scientifically how suffering happens in the human
2. In “Animal Liberation”, Peter Singer argues that human suffering and animal suffering should be given equal consideration. He believes that a lot of our modern practices are speciesist, and that they hold our best interest above all else. The only animals that we give equal consideration are humans. He questions our reasonings for giving equal consideration to all members to our species, because, some people are more superior than others, in terms of intelligence or physical strength. Humans value themselves over …show more content…
He states that non-human animals are farmed for food, experimented on, and we as humans fail to acknowledge the suffering that these animals go through, because we are too caught up in our own ‘selfish’ behavior. Overall, his main point is that from a moral standpoint, humans should reconsider our modern practices, and give all sentient non-human animals equal consideration. He suggests that we all adopt vegetarian diets, and only conduct experiments on non-human animals when it would do less harm than good. (205)
3. My argument against Singer is that there is a difference between how humans and nonhuman animals suffer. I am in no way trying to devalue animal lives or say that it is just for us to be killing them in the mass amounts that we are. However, it is something that is difficult to compare. This is because humans have a deeper level of understanding and more of an ability to mentally suffer. The author of “The Uniqueness of Human Suffering” reminds us how suffering, like many other emotions, are hard to define since they are abstract and belong to a class of concepts. However, they explain scientifically how suffering happens in the human