Scruton Vs Peter Singer Essay
Roger Scruton and Peter Singer are two philosophers who have very different theories on animal rights and the relationships we have with them. I found points in both Scruton and Singer’s opinion that I agreed with, yet neither of them felt completely true to me. Singer speaks of an overall equality between beings based on their potential to feel and suffer, rather than cognitive ability. This theory prohibits any slaughter or consumption of animals. Scruton offers the notion of the many different mental capacities of beings, and the relationships we have with animals as basis for how we are all treated; he also suggests that we are all distinguished by these differences. I found my own belief concerning animal rights and equality to fall
…show more content…
somewhere in between the two. The foundation on how we treat all beings should be built on how each individual feels and suffers, rather than their ability to rationalize or justify.
Singer brings up a controversial, but legitimate, theory when he challenges the idea of animal experimentation and consumption based on mental capacity.
Generally speaking, each individual in society is granted equal rights regardless of cognitive ability, or lack of ability to do certain things such as express themselves verbally or otherwise. In which case, there have been particular cases where certain animals have been scientifically proven to be more intelligent and cognitively developed in this sense. If this is the case, basing the slaughter and inhumane treatment of these animals on this element alone is not justified when it would be looked upon as criminal and barbaric if done to a mentally challenged person or young child.
Scruton speaks of our differences with non-human animals and brings up a solid point; but does using the ability to rationalize as premise for equality account for the unreasonable treatment of animals raised strictly for meat and treated as machines?
“...unlike them we make choices, have values and long-term hopes, judge and are judged, and as a result of all of this - see the world in terms of right, duty and responsibility and not just in terms of desire and need” [Scruton, Philosophy now interview via internet, p
4] He later goes on by saying the way in which we treat animals depends on our relationships with them, which I agree with, to a certain extent. “I have a responsibility to my pet dog, which I don’t have to some starving dog in India.” [Scruton, Philosophy now interview via internet, p 7] Sure, this makes sense. But does this give us the privilege to abuse and treat this dog strictly as a being in which we manipulate to satisfy our own greedy desires? It would bring more good to help a starving dog, then either let it die or exploit the dog.
I have been vegetarian for three years and do not look down upon those who eat meat, whatsoever. I believe everything we take from the earth should be given back in one way or another, and understand that for most people, meat is a common means of getting nutrients. The only argument I would pose about the meat industry is the inhumane treatment and slaughter of innocent animals. This is where Singer’s idea of equality is parallel to my own; but I would never expect society to completely drop the consumption of meat. Though I do believe it’s something to be appreciated and is lacking acknowledgement and gratitude in cultures all over the world, I only wish people would be more conscious of where their meat is coming from, and how it is raised, manufactured and distributed.
Conclusively, I believe both Singer and Scruton have well thought out points. Scruton’s theory is based more on science and discernment, but is lacking consideration of other important factors. I lean a bit more towards Singers theory, which is more involved with the emotional aspect of all animals with reference to how we treat them. Any being that can feel and has the ability to suffer has the right to equality, regardless of differences within our cognitive function.
Man Vs. Wild
Julia Dickison
February 19, 2012
Mrs. Monahan
English 12
somewhere in between the two. The foundation on how we treat all beings should be built on how each individual feels and suffers, rather than their ability to rationalize or justify.
Singer brings up a controversial, but legitimate, theory when he challenges the idea of animal experimentation and consumption based on mental capacity.
Generally speaking, each individual in society is granted equal rights regardless of cognitive ability, or lack of ability to do certain things such as express themselves verbally or otherwise. In which case, there have been particular cases where certain animals have been scientifically proven to be more intelligent and cognitively developed in this sense. If this is the case, basing the slaughter and inhumane treatment of these animals on this element alone is not justified when it would be looked upon as criminal and barbaric if done to a mentally challenged person or young child.
Scruton speaks of our differences with non-human animals and brings up a solid point; but does using the ability to rationalize as premise for equality account for the unreasonable treatment of animals raised strictly for meat and treated as machines?
“...unlike them we make choices, have values and long-term hopes, judge and are judged, and as a result of all of this - see the world in terms of right, duty and responsibility and not just in terms of desire and need” [Scruton, Philosophy now interview via internet, p
4] He later goes on by saying the way in which we treat animals depends on our relationships with them, which I agree with, to a certain extent. “I have a responsibility to my pet dog, which I don’t have to some starving dog in India.” [Scruton, Philosophy now interview via internet, p 7] Sure, this makes sense. But does this give us the privilege to abuse and treat this dog strictly as a being in which we manipulate to satisfy our own greedy desires? It would bring more good to help a starving dog, then either let it die or exploit the dog.
I have been vegetarian for three years and do not look down upon those who eat meat, whatsoever. I believe everything we take from the earth should be given back in one way or another, and understand that for most people, meat is a common means of getting nutrients. The only argument I would pose about the meat industry is the inhumane treatment and slaughter of innocent animals. This is where Singer’s idea of equality is parallel to my own; but I would never expect society to completely drop the consumption of meat. Though I do believe it’s something to be appreciated and is lacking acknowledgement and gratitude in cultures all over the world, I only wish people would be more conscious of where their meat is coming from, and how it is raised, manufactured and distributed.
Conclusively, I believe both Singer and Scruton have well thought out points. Scruton’s theory is based more on science and discernment, but is lacking consideration of other important factors. I lean a bit more towards Singers theory, which is more involved with the emotional aspect of all animals with reference to how we treat them. Any being that can feel and has the ability to suffer has the right to equality, regardless of differences within our cognitive function.
Man Vs. Wild
Julia Dickison
February 19, 2012
Mrs. Monahan
English 12