Singer's Argument Against Cannibalism
According to Webster’s dictionary, speciesism is the assumption of human superiority leading to the exploitation of animals. It was present by Singer in Animal Liberation. In his book, he explains his argument against how animals are abused for human benefit because of the common thought that humans are superior to animals. His position is that animals should be treat with the same respect as human beings instead of subpar.
Singer makes it clear that animals are equal to humans, not inferior, and should be treated as such throughout his argument. When thinking generally, no one usually has any objection to this claim until the treatment of animals before consumption is questioned. That is when people have found that their source of food’s …show more content…
I defend the eating of animals because it has happened throughout history and continues to provide one of the biggest sources of nourishment. This does not mean that I agree with the current practices associated with the meat market. In fact, there is no true justification for mistreating or torturing an animal when it is a luxury to eat them unless absolutely necessary. Even then, there still should be no please taken in killing.
Others had questions regarding specifically cannibalism. Although this theory validates cannibalism, it does not mean that the world would become cannibal accepting. The equalizing of animals and humans just gives the option—putting human next to ham in the supermarket. That people will actually try it is a matter of their own preference because I know I chose chicken over beef and absolutely won’t eat lamb.
Another question regarded abortion. Abortion has always been a controversial topic, but mixed with cannibalism, it’s doomed. According to my beliefs, it is true that the mother could very well eat her fetus, and this sounds absurd to many but already many moms do something similar by eating their placentas. Another person could also buy fetus at the supermarket and eat it. This is like eating lamb which is young sheep and already
Singer makes it clear that animals are equal to humans, not inferior, and should be treated as such throughout his argument. When thinking generally, no one usually has any objection to this claim until the treatment of animals before consumption is questioned. That is when people have found that their source of food’s …show more content…
I defend the eating of animals because it has happened throughout history and continues to provide one of the biggest sources of nourishment. This does not mean that I agree with the current practices associated with the meat market. In fact, there is no true justification for mistreating or torturing an animal when it is a luxury to eat them unless absolutely necessary. Even then, there still should be no please taken in killing.
Others had questions regarding specifically cannibalism. Although this theory validates cannibalism, it does not mean that the world would become cannibal accepting. The equalizing of animals and humans just gives the option—putting human next to ham in the supermarket. That people will actually try it is a matter of their own preference because I know I chose chicken over beef and absolutely won’t eat lamb.
Another question regarded abortion. Abortion has always been a controversial topic, but mixed with cannibalism, it’s doomed. According to my beliefs, it is true that the mother could very well eat her fetus, and this sounds absurd to many but already many moms do something similar by eating their placentas. Another person could also buy fetus at the supermarket and eat it. This is like eating lamb which is young sheep and already