Argument Analysis on Animal Liberation

813 Words4 Pages
Argument Analysis: Animal Liberation Peter Singer’s “Animal Liberation” gave me a whole new perspective on animals and the way humans have been treating them. It is a convincing piece because it provides information that you would not have known about animals and the way they are being treated. I did not think about the animals and how their life was like before they were prepared as food for the people. Singer argues that since animals cannot speak for themselves we the people decide to speak for them but we do not know exactly what they want. It is true that we do things to animals that we are not for certain how are they are affected by it. He hints about his thesis in the second paragraph but I was not certain if that is where the thesis would be stated. His thesis is stated in the third paragraph “It is a demand for a complete change in our attitudes to nonhumans” and “It is a demand that we cease to regard the exploitation of other species as natural and inevitable, and that, instead, we see it as a continuing moral outrage”. Singer wants us to change the way we treat animals and will try to convince us to do so. He does make a convincing case but he compares animal liberation with three other liberation movements. Singer tells us that animals do communicate with one another but since we do not speak the same language it is more difficult for us to understand and we cannot assume anything. “Other animals may communicate with each other, but not in the way we do.” (para. 13). He does convince me that there is an issue with us assuming things for the nonhumans because we do not know what they want. In order for us to have the luxuries we have today, for example, make-up and shampoo they needed to be tested before the products were official and ready for use. Singer cites two experiments and they are not very nice when they experiment on the animals. He
Open Document