Analysis Of Peter Singer's Essay 'Animal Liberation'

Meat the Dilemma In Peter Singer’s essay Animal Liberation, examines the defense of animal rights by comparing animals and historically discriminated groups such as African Americans and women. He argues that under the principle of utilitarianism the discrimination of animals cannot be considered less important than that of African Americans and women. Utilitarianism suggests that when making decisions the entire population’s welfare must be taken into account so that every individual counts as one vote but no one’s vote counts more than another. This suggests that an individual must consider the interests of others before they make their decision so that every individual is guaranteed equal consideration before the decision is made. Peter Singer questions the process of how society determines and extends equal consideration to all humans to prove that animal rights should be a controversial issue in society just like the rights of the disabled. Peter Singer, in his essay, begins to develop an understanding of how human beings determine consideration. He determines that consideration is decided not by factual traits, such as intelligence, but on the notion that every individual has interests. Peter Singer concludes that consideration for equality is determined by the interests of the parties involved rather than the characteristic traits that each party possesses. Peter Singer’s revelation for the motive behind equal consideration allowed him to generate the Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests which generates the argument for animal rights. He determines that since animals also have interests than they must too be given equal consideration. He uses Utilitarianism to defend his argument on the immorality of animal discrimination since they too have interests therefore according to the Principles of Equal Consideration of Interest’s they also deserve rights similar to those of their human counter parts. Throughout history animals lives have always been regarded differently than humans. Do they deserve any less consideration than humans because of their differences? Determining this question is impossible without first addressing the similarities and differences between humans and animals. Fundamentally animals function the same as human beings: heart pump blood, lives filter chemicals, and bones, muscles and tissues hold everything together and allow movement. Anatomically we differ only slightly in our structure and animal bodies bear a remarkable resemblance to humans; if the body doesn’t determine differences in consideration than something else must. While animal brains are smaller and have less capacity for higher intelligence they are still sentient and able to experience feelings similar to those of humans such as pain and sadness. Animal’s intelligence is less ours but they still deserve equal consideration because their ability to also experience pain, fear, anger and many of the feelings humans also possess. Animals desire many of the interests that drives humans such as hunger and pain. According to Peter Singer’s Principle for Equal Consideration of Interests under the theory of Utilitarianism they also deserve consideration. Speciesism is the biasness of a particular species leading to the decimation against or exploitation of another species. Industrial Agriculture’s exploitation of other animal species for human benefit is immoral according to Utilitarianism and therefore animal interests should also be considered when questioning the morality of the current industrial agricultural system. The techniques of industrial agriculture, specifically those which systematically take advantage of entire species, must be reevaluated to determine …show more content…
Meat is essential to our current way of life and is the main source of nutrition in our diet. The industrial agricultural system produces the vast majority of all the food in the world. The human population is believed to reach 10 million by 2050, industrial agriculture is necessary to produce enough food for the ever booming population. Without many of the techniques utilized industrial agriculture would have a difficult time keeping up with productivity and supplying the human species with the food it needs to survive. While the practice of beak clipping is disgusting and immoral according to utilitarianism. It however is necessary to keep productivity at the levels needed to supply society’s demand for its meat intensive diet. However Peter singer is correct that animals deserve rights because they share common interests with humans although boycotting factory farming meat certainly won’t sustain society’s desire for a meat intensive