Peter Singer Logic
Logic: Peter Singer
NAME
PHI 103, Information Logic
Instructor: NAME
DATE
Logic: Peter Singer
An Evaluation of Singer Peter Singer questions our conception of equality as it relates to the human species and other animal species. He fundamentally argues that, “The principle of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans: it is a prescription of how we should treat humans.” The statement, revealing Singer’s essential argument, also comprises two approaches we might take towards establishing equality among living things. Let’s trace Singer’s claims surrounding these two approaches and finally consider his fundamental, philosophical assumption. One approach to equality stems from philosophers, who determine a base-line set of attributes or functions that constitute human beings. Typical treatises attribute humans with rational, linguistic, or emotional capacities that differentiate them from “brutes.” However, Singer culls evidence from the medical field, not research but simple observations of medical disabilities, where a human with born defects actually functions at a lower level than certain animal species.
For example, someone with severe cognitive paralysis may be less rational or “able” than a normal-functioning dolphin. Thus, Singer points out that if we wish to establish equality based upon attributes, we have a hard time excluding many species of non-humans. As a corollary, the standard of equality by a typical set of characteristics must be set lower and lower to encompass all humans when we consider those with severe disabilities. In other words, writes Singer, “the philosopher comes up against the catch that any such set of characteristics which covers all humans will not be possessed only by humans.”
In support, Singer confronts those who attach human equality to genetic distinction. He claims that genetic evidence remains inconclusive at this point, and that we cannot determine
NAME
PHI 103, Information Logic
Instructor: NAME
DATE
Logic: Peter Singer
An Evaluation of Singer Peter Singer questions our conception of equality as it relates to the human species and other animal species. He fundamentally argues that, “The principle of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans: it is a prescription of how we should treat humans.” The statement, revealing Singer’s essential argument, also comprises two approaches we might take towards establishing equality among living things. Let’s trace Singer’s claims surrounding these two approaches and finally consider his fundamental, philosophical assumption. One approach to equality stems from philosophers, who determine a base-line set of attributes or functions that constitute human beings. Typical treatises attribute humans with rational, linguistic, or emotional capacities that differentiate them from “brutes.” However, Singer culls evidence from the medical field, not research but simple observations of medical disabilities, where a human with born defects actually functions at a lower level than certain animal species.
For example, someone with severe cognitive paralysis may be less rational or “able” than a normal-functioning dolphin. Thus, Singer points out that if we wish to establish equality based upon attributes, we have a hard time excluding many species of non-humans. As a corollary, the standard of equality by a typical set of characteristics must be set lower and lower to encompass all humans when we consider those with severe disabilities. In other words, writes Singer, “the philosopher comes up against the catch that any such set of characteristics which covers all humans will not be possessed only by humans.”
In support, Singer confronts those who attach human equality to genetic distinction. He claims that genetic evidence remains inconclusive at this point, and that we cannot determine