Peter Singer authored a thought-provoking article in which he calls for animals to be regarded as equal to humans. Titled All Animals are Equal, the article makes a compelling case for mankind to extend certain rights to animals. Singer bases most of his arguments of the movements that such disadvantaged groups as women have launched for the purpose of agitating for their rights. He argues that at the time of their formation, these movements faced strong opposition and their efforts were ridiculed. However, as mankind’s perspective was refined, individuals began to see the need to grant the disadvantaged groups such liberties as the right to vote. Upon initial reading, Singer’s arguments sound rather absurd and baseless. However, upon closer scrutiny, one is convinced that perhaps it is time for mankind to regard animals as being equal to man.
Notion of Equality of Consideration
One of the ideas that Singer presents in defending his call for animals to be treated as man’s equal is the notion of equality of consideration. Essentially, this notion involves granting animals rights that are relevant and consistent with their nature and capabilities (Singer, 1989). For example, Singer notes that it would be foolish to call for animals to be granted the right to vote. The foolishness of this call lies is the fact that animals lack the capacity to vote. Moreover, they do not understand the far-reaching impacts that voting can have. Therefore, it would be absurd to allow animals to vote. The notion of equality of consideration also holds further that equal treatment needs to account for the differences among humans and animals (Singer, 1989). Singer contends that today, men and women are regarded as equals. However, despite this, there are certain rights that women are granted that men are unable to exercise. For example, in such countries as the United States, women are able to procure abortions. It would be ridiculous for a man to demand a similar right and base his demand on the fact that women and men are equal. Another example that Singer offers to shed further light on the notion of equality of consideration concerns the equality of races. He argues that there are fundamental differences that set the different races apart (Singer, 1989). Despite these differences, most people hold that all races are equal. Therefore, for equal treatment of all groups to occur, the differences that distinguish these groups need to be acknowledged. The notion of equality of consideration basically makes it clear that it is possible to regard different groups as equal while granting different rights to these groups.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Equality of Consideration as the Only Morally Relevant Sense of Equality
As he discusses the notion of equality of consideration, Singer anticipates some objections to this notion. For example, he rightly anticipates that one could argue that it would be fair to treat individuals who possess different levels of intelligence differently. This argument would indeed be valid. In responding to this argument, Singer presents the equality of consideration as the only morally relevant sense of equality. He points out that “equality is a moral ideal, not a simple assertion of fact” (Singer, 1989, p. 151). He proceeds to add that “the principle of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans; it is a prescription of how we should treat humans” (p. 151). Through these statements, Singer asserts that simply because one is factually inferior does not mean that they should be denied the treatment that is offered to those who have been established to be superior. Since it discourages basing how individuals are treated on such issues as race and gender, the equality of consideration is left as the only morally relevant sense of equality.
To further support his notion of equality of consideration, Singer cites Jeremy Bentham. Bentham contended that the interests of all individuals are equal and should therefore be assigned the same weight (Singer, 1989). Essentially, this means that mankind should never sacrifice the interests of those who are deemed undesirable or inferior so as to safeguard those that are considered superior. Singer proceeds to state that how individuals treat others should not be based on what these individuals are like or the abilities that they possess (Singer, 1989). Instead, they should adopt an approach which recognizes the equality and dignity of all individuals. This approach captures the essence of the notion of equality of consideration.
The case that Singer presents for the adoption of the notion of equal consideration is indeed compelling. In addition to the arguments offered above, he presents examples to add further support to his argument. One of these examples concerns the experiences of slaves. He notes that the French led the world in recognizing the equality of black slaves (Singer, 1989). The French people had the foresight and wisdom to understand that the color of the skin of the black slaves did not suggest their inferiority. The oppression that they suffered was the result of man’s failure to understand that the equality of mankind does not hinge on race or gender. By the very virtue of being human, all individuals should be treated equally.
As an individual reflects on Singer’s discussion, one of the issues that become clear is that he set out to challenge mankind to abandon such ills as discrimination and oppression of defenseless minorities. As he challenges readers to embrace the equality of consideration, he notes that the only fact that one should ever consider when determining how to treat another is whether the other has the capacity to experience suffering (Singer, 1989). Through this argument, Singer presents the equality of consideration as the only morally relevant sense of equality. Basically, all beings which can experience suffering should be accorded equal treatment.
If all humans have equal rights, then animals have rights equal to humans
The various arguments that Singer presents set the stage for his assertion that since all humans are equal then it follows that animals should be treated as being equal to humans. To buttress this argument, Singer argues that the fact that animals have the capacity to experience suffering earns them the right to be granted the rights that humans enjoy. He states that “the capacity for suffering (is)… a vital characteristic that gives a being the right to equal consideration” (Singer, p. 152). Singer suggests that one of the reasons why humans are treated equally is that inequalities and discrimination breed suffering and hardship. For example, members of the African American community have endured years of oppression and discrimination. The equal treatment that these individuals enjoy today is the result of the recognition that oppression and inequality lead to suffering. Basically, the equal treatment of humans is an acknowledgement that humans can experience suffering and that suffering is unpleasant. This construction can be extended to animals. It is understood that animals have the capacity for suffering (Singer, 1989). For example, when denied food or beaten, a dog would experience pain. Therefore, the capacity for suffering qualifies animals to enjoy the same range of rights that humans have been granted.
Singer desperately and passionately defends his calls for the equal treatment of animals. Among the numerous arguments that he raises is that the basis for denying animals equal rights is arbitrary and flawed. The fact that they are physically different is the main reason why a distinction is made between animals and humans. This distinction is then used to deny animals the rights that humans enjoy. For example, since they walk on four legs and are unable to speak, animals are thought to be underserving of the rights that humans take for granted. Singer argues that there mere fact that animals possess different physical features is not sufficient justification for denying them rights (Singer, 1989). Since humans are accorded equal rights despite differences in such traits as skin color, there is no basis for refusing to extend the same rights to animals. Singer also notes that denying animals equal rights and treatment as humans is selfish. He observes that people tend to give greater consideration to those with whom they share similarities (Singer, 1989). For example, a racist white person may treat fellow white people better while disregarding the rights of individuals belonging to other races. The same is also true for how humans treat animals. They are treated differently simply because they do not belong to the human community. Singer further argues that the poor treatment of animals is unnecessary. He offers the example of how humans kill animals for food. He argues that the nutrients that the animals provide can easily be obtained from plants (Singer, 1989). He also describes how humans routinely conduct laboratory tests on animals to establish that certain interventions or substances are safe for human use. Sacrificing animals to safeguard the interests of man is unfair and discriminatory. Basically, mankind refuses to extend equal rights to animals because doing this would go against the interest of man. The arguments that Singer presents make it clear that since man grants equal rights to man, the same rights are owed to animals.
Objection
For the most part, the arguments that Singer presents are solid and compelling. It is very difficult to refute these arguments. For example, the task of justifying the killing of animals for nutrients that can be obtained from plants which have no capacity for suffering would indeed be daunting. While Singer’s arguments are compelling, they are not flawless. One of the objections that one may raise is that Singer fails to acknowledge an undeniable truth: humans are moral beings while animals are not. Humans are capable of making moral decisions and being judged for these decisions. On the other hand, animals are unable to make moral choices and it would be unfair to judge their actions based on the same standards against which human actions are evaluated. Therefore, since animals are shielded against the harsh moral judgment that humans usually face, it is unfair to grant animals the rights that humans enjoy. This objection deals a blow to Singer’s position. However, the objection is not sufficient to completely water down Singer’s argument. Singer’s position is solid and based on reasonable premises. For example, as noted above, Singer argues that man can simply turn to plants for nutrients instead of killing animals. This argument is among the many reasonable and compelling assertions that Singer uses to safeguard his position against criticism or objection.
Conclusion
Whether animals deserve the same rights that humans enjoy remains a contentious and divisive issue. Singer represents the camp which asserts that animals are owed the rights that humans have enjoyed for decades. He bases this assertion mostly on how humans treat each other. He observes that most humans agree that all individuals should be treated equally regardless of such issues as race or gender. Singer also challenges his readers to reflect on how humans violate the welfare of animals in the pursuit of selfish goals which only benefit humans. The points that he makes are indeed thought-provoking and valid. Singer’s discussion should form the basis of any debate regarding the rights of animals versus humans.
Reference
Singer, P. (1989). All Animals are Equal. In Regan, T., & Singer, P. Animal Rights and
Animal Obligations. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
