In Speciesism and Moral Status‚ Singer employs formal yet common terminology that is easy to understand in order to persuade his readers to see his point of view‚ whereas in Liberté‚ Égalité‚ Animalité: Human-Animal Comparisons in Law‚ Peters uses formal terminology that has more of a basis in law‚ which would be confusing to the common reader‚ because this paper is not meant for persuasion. For example‚ in Speciesism and Moral Status‚ Singer states that “In
Premium Rhetoric Mental retardation Habeas corpus
’Insoutenable légèreté de l ’être. Paris‚ France : Gallimard‚ p.76. Regan‚ T. (1983). The Case for Animal Rights. United States: University of California Press. Sarjeant‚ R. (1969). The Spectrum of Pain. Hart Davis‚ p. 72. Waldau‚ P. (2002). The Specter of Speciesism: Buddhist and Christian Views of Animals. New York: Oxford University Press.
Premium The Unbearable Lightness of Being Animal rights Suffering
metamorphosed into yield-less speculations. Animal testing is wrong based on these premises: there are available alternatives to direct testing on live animals‚ the results acquired rom the tests are inaccurate and repetitive‚ and ultimately it is speciesism‚ which is comparable to racism and sexism. Today’s society has progressed in other aspects‚ it is time for in-obligatory animal testing to be abolished. Cruelty to animals is inexcusable‚ avoidable and thoroughly repelling. In the past‚ humans
Premium Human Mammal Religion
Explain the Preference Utilitarianism of Peter Singer Preference Utilitarianism is based on the idea that a good action is one that maximises the preferences of all involved so that my own want‚ needs and desires cannot apply to everyone. Utilitarianism is a teleological or consequentialist approach to ethics‚ which means that the action’s outcome is looked at. It is the greatest happiness principle. It is the consequences of an action which judge whether it is good or bad. Preference Utilitarianism
Premium Utilitarianism Ethics Hedonism
suffering and happiness is the main moral principles of equal consideration of interests. Humans and non-humans both have the ability to feel pain and pleasure‚ so they should be considered equal in regards to these two aspects. However‚ due to ‘Speciesism’ which is our society’s way of thinking that non humans are inferior and that we should favor the human species over them‚ is how we morally justify acts like‚ for example‚ experimenting of animals rather than on humans (Parenethical.com‚ 2014)
Free Morality Human Suffering
humans who are mentally retarded or orphaned babies‚ if that were the only way to save thousands of lives? To Singer‚ if one is unprepared to experiment on humans then they have revealed a form of discrimination on the basis of species‚ known as speciesism. In this paper the condition for justified experimentation using animals is discussed. Singer states that if an experiment is truly important it would be acceptable to use a human patient‚ which shares the same cognitive level with an animal. In
Premium Human Informed consent Medical research
pleasure/pain so they deserve our moral consideration. Speciesism is an injustice parallel to racism and sexism. · Not all animal lives are of equal worth. Human interests may outweigh those of nonhumans. · Need of an overall balance of pleasure over suffering Steinbock · Pain of animals is a morally relevant consideration but is not morally decisive. · Morally good reasons for taking our own species as morally special · Affirms speciesism – humans are more
Free Morality Human Law
of the opinion that animals should be liberated similarly to how minorities and females experienced their own liberation movements. If one doesn’t grant animals equal consideration‚ then according to Singer‚ they’re guilty of something he calls “Speciesism”‚ which is essentially a prejudice against animals which assumes that humans are superior to all other living beings. I find this term to be a little ridiculous and somewhat offensive. I understand what he’s saying‚ but I don’t think that racism
Premium Animal rights Morality Human
All animals have rights. Unfortunately‚ these rights are perceived to be to some degree because of the traditional belief that animals only have instrumental value. According to Tom Regan’s essay Case for Animal Rights‚ all animals have moral value. If an animal has the ability feel pain‚ they should have moral consideration. This is a utilitarian view‚ which focuses on the suffering and/or pleasure of beings as morally valuable. The subject of animal cruelty has existed for a multitude of years
Premium Animal rights Abuse Mammal
Ethical Issues in the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research Richard R. Sharp‚ PhD Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy Baylor College of Medicine Historical Perspectives The use of animals in biomedical research has a lengthy history. Early Greek writings (circa 500 B.C.)‚ for example‚ describe the dissection of living animals by physician-scientists interested in physiological processes. These early vivisections appear to have been done mostly for exploratory purposes‚ however
Premium Animal testing Animal rights