Analysis: “All Animals are Equal” by Peter Singer Peter Singer in his article “All Animals are Equal” aims to challenge the way that society at large treats and perceives non-human sentient beings. He suggests that animals should be treated with the same principles of equality that humans receive. In his view, not giving equal consideration to animals is the same as justifying human discrimination such as racism and sexism. This view is based on his logical reasoning that human equality is not based on any factual properties. He points out that there are many physiological traits that separate humans, these traits can be used to justify human discrimination.
Regardless of how humane, animal rights proponents reject all animal use as exploitation and aim to ban all use of animals by humans. (1) Animal right is an extreme view that attempts to elevate all animals to equality with humans by applying human interpretations of morality. It is based on the philosophical belief that animals have moral rights to life, liberty and other privileges that should be protected by society and the rule of law. In this way, a human infant will be having the same right to life as a mouse in the street or a cow in the pasture. In contrast, animal welfare takes the position that it is morally acceptable for humans to use non-human animals, provided that the testing minimizes animal use and suffering.
All of these viewpoints have contributed to the development of ethical principles of animal use. These in turn have shaped animal use regulations promulgated by the USDA and the PHS, and echoed by organizations such as AAALAC, AALAS and the AVMA. These regulations embody principles summarized in statements by the Public Health Service Policy and by NASA. These issues are discussed below. Ethics on use of animals for research The early Greek philosophers valued reason above all else, and ascribed little moral value to animals and even to other humans that did not possess this attribute.
Aquinas considered that by using our reason to reflect on our human nature we could discover our specific end purpose. Aquinas used the ideas of Aristotle and the Stoics as an underpinning for Natural Law saying- human beings have an essential rational nature given by God in order for us to live and flourish. Aristotle said even without knowledge of god, reason can discover the laws that lead to human flourishing. The Stoics said Natural Laws are universal and unchangeable and should be used to judge of particular societies. We use this is help us choose the right moral action is situations.
Personality and moral self explain how and why human beings make free choices. The libertarianism theory has been explained by CA Campbell, who said that human beings see themselves as free agents and therefore accept moral responsibility for their actions. Humans must accept responsibility for these actions and face any consequences that may come their way. John Stuart Mill - an influencal figure in Liberatarianism – believe we are free and morally responsible for all our actions. Mill believed it was extremely important that an indivduals free will should not be crushed by society.
Peter Singer, in his article, All Animals are Equal, claims that we should give the same respect to the lives of non-human animals as we give to the lives of humans--that all animals, human and non-human, are equal. To make his case he must overcome claims towards speciesim. Singer defines speciesim as, "a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species"; and makes three claims against it--equality is based on equal consideration, equality is a moral idea not a factual one, and that the capacity for suffering is a prerequisite for rights. Singers argument?--without speciesim inequality cannot follow. To make the case that equality is based on equal consideration, Singer shows that arguments for not extending rights to non-humans are inconsistent.
Cultural Relativism is a theory stating the idea that cultural norms and ideas differ from culture to culture. In addition, Cultural Relativism says that there are no universal standards and truth in ethics. It is relative to the culture to determine whether a moral standard is right or wrong. There is no objective standards judging other cultures code as inferior or superior to another. Thus, since cultural relativism states that we can’t judge other cultures moral codes, then we must be tolerant of them.
Due to this, some people feel that animals should be treated equally with human beings because just like us, they have rights too. Animals are fully aware of their existence and like humans, feel emotions and pain therefore by killing them for own benefit would be ethically incorrect. Just because they are unable to speak for themselves, it does not mean that humans can choose when their life ends. Furthermore, by killing an animal for the benefit of humans is also wrong because it is going against the sixth commandment ‘do not murder’. This is wrong, because as humans we must respect hashem and not disobey his commandments.
It stands to reason however, that anyone’s position on a matter is subject to challenge or criticism. Taking this into consideration I will explore Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism and it’s potential to challenge my thesis on our moral obligation to the environment. While I find the anthropocentric view selfish in nature, it can be used to great effect to justify my claim. Anthropocentrism puts forward the claim that humans are at the centre of nature, and in order to sustain our existence and continue to advance, every living thing and resource exists solely to serve that purpose (Cochrane, 2007). Yet this does not imply that we should mine every mineral and strip every tree, for if we were to consume and take every resource to meet the demands of our ever advancing and growing civilisation, the planet would be devoid of all resources that humanity cannot exist without.
Since every ethical system should evaluate itself as the best and only moral system, and every other system is flawed and immoral, it is assumed that moral judgements about ethical systems are meaningless. Moral Relativism rests on the belief that values are subjective. It is holds the belief that there is no objective morality, that there is no such thing as right or wrong, good or evil. Only that, moral systems are just made up and supported by the circumstances of the action. Moral Relativism cannot and does not accept the idea that an objective moral system exists.