Why animals are our equals. Each section/response is preceded by the paragraph of the paper it is referring to.
Peter singer, new york university follow repository citation singer, peter (1974) all animals are equal, philosophic exchange :
All animals are equal peter singer conclusion. Long after i finished reading the book, peter singer’s words kept echoing through my mind. The morally right act is the one whose consequences maximize the total balance of pleasure (interest satisfaction) minus pain (interest frustration) when considering all beings affected I was reading peter singer's article on animal rights and how they should have the same equality as humans but am having troubling boiling down his argument to main premises.
All animals are equal peter singer, a utilitarian, believes in the minimization of happiness of humans and extends this thought to the nonhuman inhabitants of earth. I've included replies only if the point is directly addressed by singer in the chapter. This includes human animals such as man and woman, as well as nonhuman animals such as beasts.
Singer's all animals are equal in this article, singer argues that we extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of us recognize should be extended to all members of our own species (461). In doing so, he is not making the claim that these animals are equal in their capacities, such as reasoning, appearance, ability, or opportunities. The idea of “the rights of animals” actually was once used to parody the case for
In recent years a number of oppressed groups have campaigned vigorously for equality. As singer rightly points out, humans are indeed not truly equal. To make his case he must overcome claims towards speciesim.
The idea of animal rights first arose as a joke, to make fun of women's rights. Tom regan’s, the case for animal rights, and peter singer’s, the animal liberation movement, both advocate for the rights and equal treatment of animals through various means.both seek to change the cruel and brutal treatment of animals present in the world today but the method in which they wish to reach this goal differs. All animals are equal by peter singer ira.
What follows are my notes on peter singer’s “all animals are equal”. It is somewhat ironic, then, that peter singer uses utilitarianism as the basis for arguing that animals have rights. Peter singer, “all animals are equal” speciesism:
Argument for main conclusion 1] beings have interests just in case they are capable of suffering. Animal “rights” is of course not the only philosophical basis for extending legal protections to animals. To treat human suffering as mattering more than nonhuman suffering is speciesist.
If we extend the principle of equality to nonhuman animals, we will see that animal experimentation (and factory farming) are. We should extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of us recognize should be extended to all members of our own species (1). The principle of equality is not a description, but a prescription to show equal concern for all who can suffer, human or not.
Decamp professor of bioethics, university center for human values, princeton university animal rights and human obligations, 2nd edition, new jersey, 1989 in recent years a number of oppressed groups have campaigned vigorously for equality. I was reading peter singer's article on animal rights and how they should have the same equality as humans but am having troubling boiling down his argument to main premises. All page numbers refer to the article.
Peter singer, all animals are equal bonnie steinbock, speciesism and the idea of equality chapter summary. All animals are equal1 by peter singer in recent years a number of oppressed groups have campaigned vigorously for equality. I understand in entirety what he's trying to say and understand his arguments, but am having trouble figuring out what his premise 1, premise 2, and premise 3 and how they.
Peter singer all animals are equal (1989) 1. Once we properly understand the idea of moral equality, there is no reason to deny that sentient animals have interests that are equal to human interests. Singer's argument in animal liberation, chapter 1 minutes from class discussion (2/7) here are your objections plus singer's replies.
This post began as a response to a comment a friend left on my last post, “caught in the line of fire”, but once i started i got carried away.included in my friend’s comment was a link to the article “all animals are equal” by the philosopher peter singer, which was an interesting read that appealed strongly to the humanitarian in me, and i would recommend taking a look at it. Animal rights and human obligations edited by tom regan and peter singer. This is the view espoused by peter singer, author of animal liberation.
Experiment analogy argument conclusion animals & human infant (orphan) = no different on sensitive to pain but, the scientists always use animals for the experiment racism & sexism These are a version of notes i took for my applied ethics students on peter singer’s 1974 article “all animals are equal” from philosophical exchange 1, reprinted as article 14 of hugh lafollette’s ethics in practice: The belief that the interests of (a member of) one’s own species count for more than the interests of (a member of) another species.
I understand in entirety what he's trying to say and understand his arguments, but am having trouble figuring out what his premise 1, premise 2, and premise 3 and how they. Alastair norcross, puppies, pigs, and people. It owes much to the work of philosopher peter singer and his 1975 book 'animal liberation'.
Singer accepts utilitarianism as an ethical theory 2. The classic instance is the black liberation movement, which All animals are equal by peter singer from:
To make his case he must overcome claims towards speciesim. In chapter one of animal liberation, peter singer starts off by asserting that all animals are equal; Most modern humans are speciesist, as shown by various common practices involving eating, raising, and experimenting on animals.
And if that is correct, then so is singer’s conclusion about extending the principle of equality to all who can suffer. All animals are equal i. The conclusion extends to non human animals:
Singer, believes that all animals should be granted moral status, similar to that of the human inhabitants. If non human animals have such interests, they must be given equal consideration specieism giving less weight to the interests of a certain group than we give to the interests of other groups based on morally irrelevant distinctions (group membership, physical differences). Some will reject singer’s conclusion because it has.