Peter Singer argues that it is morally unjustifiable to kill and eat animals for our own pleasure and as food. I personally agree with Singer’s argument that it is wrong to kill other species, using them merely as a means to our end because I firmly believe that their interests in not suffering is parallel to humans interests in not suffering. Animals are sentient beings, meaning that they experience both pain and pleasure as we do. Singer approaches this argument from a Utilitarian perspective, implying a principle of equality. Utilitarianism states that the moral worth of an action depends entirely on its contribution of maximizing the total happiness or pleasure among all people while minimizing the total pain or suffering.
As Singer states, almost all humans are speciesists. Speciesism is the discrimination, prejudice, or attitude of bias in …show more content…
the interest in not suffering or being killed, not their rights. In this case they believe that humans are superior since they are more intelligent and have a larger mental capacity than animals and therefore should not be considered equal to them. However equality within our own human species is not based off of the same reasoning. We would not say that someone with an IQ of 125 has a more superior status or is greater than someone with an IQ of 70. Yes there are certain characteristics of beings that make their lives more valuable than others however then that would imply that there are nonhuman animals whose lives hold more value than the lives of some humans. For instance a chimpanzee would have greater mental capacities than a mentally retarded infant (Singer 388). This objection does not succeed because since it is wrong to treat other members of our own species differently based solely on their intelligence then that does not make it morally acceptable to treat members of different species on that same
As Singer states, almost all humans are speciesists. Speciesism is the discrimination, prejudice, or attitude of bias in …show more content…
the interest in not suffering or being killed, not their rights. In this case they believe that humans are superior since they are more intelligent and have a larger mental capacity than animals and therefore should not be considered equal to them. However equality within our own human species is not based off of the same reasoning. We would not say that someone with an IQ of 125 has a more superior status or is greater than someone with an IQ of 70. Yes there are certain characteristics of beings that make their lives more valuable than others however then that would imply that there are nonhuman animals whose lives hold more value than the lives of some humans. For instance a chimpanzee would have greater mental capacities than a mentally retarded infant (Singer 388). This objection does not succeed because since it is wrong to treat other members of our own species differently based solely on their intelligence then that does not make it morally acceptable to treat members of different species on that same