Reading Response 'According To Singer Speciesism'
Nasro Hassan
Reading Response 5
1. According to Singer speciesism is the unjustified attitudes and bias towards the interest of members of one’s species or against those members of another species. Singer believes that the basis of equality is if a being can suffer. If a being can suffer than it should have some moral worth. Therefore animals are beings because they can suffer.
2. According to Kant only rational beings are moral, animals are not rational so they have no moral worth. We only have duty to other humans. Cohen says that only humans have rights and that animals have no rights. They are just complex automata. Animals don’t have any rights because they do not confront choices, lay down moral rights and self-legislate. Basically they are not in a moral community therefore they have no rights to violate. The absurd consequences of animals is that we protest against testing animals and yet we continue to eat them and wear them. Cohen thinks that it is absurd to say not to test on animals but yet you continue to kill them just to eat them. I agree with Cohen about the absurd consequences. If you don’t want animals to die due to medical and research testing you shouldn’t eat them as well because you are still harming them.
3. Augustine says that our souls cannot …show more content…
Nagel says that the absurdity of our existence is not a problem that we must find a solution for because our absurdity comes from feeling insignificant because we are so small compared to the universe, space and time. Although Nagel claims that the absurdity of our existence is not the problem, he claims a diagnosis for the feeling why people think that life is absurd. He believes that absurdity comes from the seriousness because that’s what the human life “demands”. Humans must be serious even if life is serious or not because is through seriousness in which we take our lives. Our lives demand a lot from us and it we take it very serious even though our lives might not be that
Reading Response 5
1. According to Singer speciesism is the unjustified attitudes and bias towards the interest of members of one’s species or against those members of another species. Singer believes that the basis of equality is if a being can suffer. If a being can suffer than it should have some moral worth. Therefore animals are beings because they can suffer.
2. According to Kant only rational beings are moral, animals are not rational so they have no moral worth. We only have duty to other humans. Cohen says that only humans have rights and that animals have no rights. They are just complex automata. Animals don’t have any rights because they do not confront choices, lay down moral rights and self-legislate. Basically they are not in a moral community therefore they have no rights to violate. The absurd consequences of animals is that we protest against testing animals and yet we continue to eat them and wear them. Cohen thinks that it is absurd to say not to test on animals but yet you continue to kill them just to eat them. I agree with Cohen about the absurd consequences. If you don’t want animals to die due to medical and research testing you shouldn’t eat them as well because you are still harming them.
3. Augustine says that our souls cannot …show more content…
Nagel says that the absurdity of our existence is not a problem that we must find a solution for because our absurdity comes from feeling insignificant because we are so small compared to the universe, space and time. Although Nagel claims that the absurdity of our existence is not the problem, he claims a diagnosis for the feeling why people think that life is absurd. He believes that absurdity comes from the seriousness because that’s what the human life “demands”. Humans must be serious even if life is serious or not because is through seriousness in which we take our lives. Our lives demand a lot from us and it we take it very serious even though our lives might not be that