Contemporary Moral Arguments: Singer's Concept on Speciesim (Research Paper Sample)

Contemporary Moral Arguments: Singer’s Concept on Speciesim
Name:
Institution:
Contemporary Moral Arguments: Singer’s concept on Speciesim
Thesis statement
It is morally wrong to treat the under non-humans differently, purely basing on their weakness and their lack of ability to fight for their rights.
Introduction
Peter Singer is among the originator of the concept of speciesim in which he argues that all animals are equal. He equated the alignment of members interest around own species in instances where this interests clash with the interest of other species with how racist align their interest around ,members of their race when their interest clash with those of other species. In essence therefore, similar to how all human are equal but divided by selfish interest, all humans are also equal but are divided by the selfish interest of individual species and more specifically the selfish interest of humans who are both the dominant and the most intelligent of the other species. Due to the human’s self-interest, they have exploited and misused the other species by for instance using them for food, clothing, and entertainment, for scientific research and as pets.
Peter Singer’s Speciesim
I do agree with peter Singer statement that all animals are equal and that acts that undermine one species for the benefits of another species or due to the personal interests of another species are as evil as those acts that undermine one human race against the other. For instance, there can never be a moral justification of why humans have the right to slaughter animals to use their flesh as food and or their skin for clothing. This new moral horizon has expanded the fundamental moral principal on equality. Practices that were earlier regarded as natural and inevitable, for instance eating flesh, have come to be viewed as a form of unjustified prejudice against other species by humans. For instance, slaughtering of animals for meat or to use their skins as clothing has come under criticism especially from vegans and rightly so because of the underlying cruelty. Singer’s concept has been a source of big encouragement and support to a considerable number of people who advocate for equality among all animals. The underlying principle in the classification of acts of aggression or maltreatment in any form against other species especially perpetrated by humans as immoral is well founded and justifiable. In contrast there is no justification for these acts of aggression perpetrated at the expense of other species for the sole interest of benefiting humans alone. It is morally wrong to treat the under privileged differently, purely basing on their weakness and their lack of ability to fight for their rights.
Moral Value of animals
It is wrong and unethical to use other animals in such a way that would cause harm to them in any way for instance by causing them suffering, by depriving them of fundamental essential components of a peaceful existence, or by inflicting causing them pain. There are numerous ways how humans cause suffering to other animals. The most common are through use of animals as guinea pigs for experimentation and the commercial use of animals as food or part as clothing. Basic ethics dictates that we extend equal consideration to all animals as we give to other humans, that is, the human values of equality should be extended all species of animals. This is the basic tenet of the Singer’s argument and is a huge reason why I agree with him. It is worth noting that Singer’s consideration is only limited to the consideration that fall within the hedonistic scope of reducing pain and maximizing pleasure. To Singer, equality is a moral conception, not an assertion of fact.
There is no understandably compelling reason for supposing that a factual difference in the ability between two people or by extension animals justifies any difference in the amount of consideration we give to their needs and interests. Despite this though, morality is the principle that governs our actions, and determines our conviction of the interest for others. Inevitably, every person deserves to be considered with equal morals for their interests, irrespective of their race, sex, or socio-economic status. Therefore Morality is an adequate justification for the need to extend this consideration across all species regardless of their weaknesses or strengths. Similar like how there is no justification for the unequal consideration of human beings based on their individual capacity, it is also not justifiable to treat non-human animals differently based on their different capacities. Such actions would constitute “speciesism,” which, Singer argues, is as unjustifiable and unsupportable as other vices such as racism or sexism. It is very wrong to treat animal, non- humans differently based on the mere fact that they are not Homo sapiens (Vaughn, 2013).
Why Eating meat is unethical
Eating meet is the worst form of maltreatment of non-human animals. It involves causing massive pain and ultimately death to an animal for the sole interest of benefiting humans. This is very selfless and unjustifiable and constitutes the worst form of speciesism according to Singer. It is this form- eating meat, of aggression against animals that has led to a considerable amount of people advocating for animal rights. The advocacy rights for all animals are a serious objective and not a parody for liberation movements as some of the opponents of the singer argument are claiming.
Why anti singer arguments do not hold
Some of the arguments against the Peter Singer argument and by extension on speciesim are very inaccurate and wrong. Most of then try to maliciously justify how racism and speciesim are not equal by showing how the groupings within the human species are not equal to the grouping between species. In my opinion I support singer in terming such argument as very simplistic. For instance, some people argue that considers speciesism pretty differently from racism by setting claims that the interest of animals that are not human are completely different from the interests of humans’. But the fact is that a difference between the content of two interests needs not imply a difference between their significance.
Two interests do not necessarily need to be equivalent with regards to the content for the needs to be regarded with equal weight. In contrast, considering interests equally would entail giving attention to the different interests. If not so, their weights of the interests would not be appraised and cannot be attended. To illustrate, reflect on an instance with two people who are terminally ill. Further, consider that one of the patients has a liver disease and the other has a serious coronary malady. Supposing the two suffers from severe conditions with equal consequence, and that their lives is threatened with equal measure for the two patients. Considering their interests’ equal y would entails we will not giving proper treatment to one patient and not to the other patient, all other factors remaining equal. However, the treatment that the two patients deserve to receive has to be similar for both the patients while the patient’s requirement will not be necessarily the same. To avoid creating disadvantageous treatment there is need to know what exactly ails each of the two patients is suffering from. If ‘equal treatment’ means “being treated according to what an equal consideration of interests implies”, then it cannot always mean “being treated in the same way” (Vaughn, 2013).
In addition, it is worth noting that different treatment and being treated disadvantageously is not the same thing. Being equally considered does not entail being treated in the same way. This infers being treated in such a way that is not to the disadvantage for anyone of those involved, that is, being treated in a way that does not bring suffering to the other wh...