Top-Rated Free Essay
Preview

Comm101 The Place Of Nonhumans In Envi

Good Essays
786 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Comm101 The Place Of Nonhumans In Envi
The Place of Nonhumans in Environmental Issues
1) Do you agree with singer that, morally, animals have an ‘equal consideration of interests’ with humans? Explain the reason for your answer.

The suffering and happiness is the main moral principles of equal consideration of interests. Humans and non-humans both have the ability to feel pain and pleasure, so they should be considered equal in regards to these two aspects. However, due to ‘Speciesism’ which is our society’s way of thinking that non humans are inferior and that we should favor the human species over them, is how we morally justify acts like, for example, experimenting of animals rather than on humans (Parenethical.com, 2014). Singer says that no matter if you’re human or non-human, if someone suffers or will suffer, it is important to consider this suffering and not find ways to morally justify them (Parenethical.com, 2014).

Equal consideration does not mean treating everyone the same and place equal value on both humans and non-humans lives. It only means considering the interests of both sides and not just giving preference to humans. As mentioned above, if animals interests are considered, and their pain and pleasure are measured against the pain and pleasure of humans, things like factory farming can be considered immoral (Parenethical.com, 2014).

Some people also morally justify speciesism because they misinterpret and think that animals feel less pain than humans do. For example, slapping a horse across its back and slapping a baby in the same way. Due to the horse’s thick skin, the horse wouldn’t feel as much pain as the baby would because babies have sensitive skin. However, this is not the same amount of pain between the two, the horse being hit with something harder, for example a stick, might then feel the equal amount of pain as the baby being slapped. So if we claim that it is wrong to inflict that much pain on a baby, we must then agree that it is wrong or immoral to inflict the same amount of pain on a horse (Stafforini, 2014).

To conclude, it is important for animals to have equal consideration because of the fact that animals do suffer, so humans and non-humans do have the same interest in avoiding pain and that there is no non-speciesist way to draw the line between animal interests and human interest (MacKinnon, 1995).

2) Do the economic interests of humans come before the well-being of animals?

People see animals as sources of food and clothing. Experimenting on animals is also viewed beneficial to test the safety and effectiveness of drugs, detergents and cosmetics. In other words, animals are known as economic commodities (MacKinnon, 1995).

In the case study, Singer talks about how people are willing to allow animals to live and endure in the bad, unsuitable conditions for the duration of their lives just so they can eat meat at low enough prices that they can afford. This is an example of how society would rather not pay extra money on meat for their own economic interest, over the interests of the animals. The other example in the case study is the timber industry, instead of obtaining timber from forests by cutting only certain dead and matured trees, they use clear cutting, which means cutting down everything in a given area which destroys wild animals habitat. Despite the fact that cutting down dead and mature trees will cause little disturbance. Timber companies use clear cutting method due to the fact that it is a lot cheaper than if they gave equal consideration to animals and went with selecting to cut the mature and dead tress instead (Barry, 1979).

Other environmental issues are water and air pollution and other effect such as global warming. People and industries change the environment for their own economic interest. However, these changes not only affect the non-humans but also the humans. The case study gives an example of humans discharging cadmium into the bay and eating shellfish from the bay which can make people ill and can potentially be fatal (Barry, 1979).

Due to speciesism and other factors, humans cause pollution and global warming which destroy habitats and tend to not give equal consideration of interests to animals because it results in an economic gain for them whether it is a short term gain or long term economic gain.

References

Barry, V. (1979). Moral issues in business. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Pub. Co., pp.361-365.

MacKinnon, B. (1995). Ethics. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Pub. Co.

Parenethical.com, (2014). Equal Consideration for Animals « Introduction to Ethics. [online] Available at: http://parenethical.com/phil140sp11/2011/05/08/equal-consideration-for-animals/ [Accessed 25 Nov. 2014].

Stafforini, P. (2014). Equality for Animals?, by Peter Singer. [online] Utilitarian.net. Available at: http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1979----.htm [Accessed 25 Nov. 2014].

References: Barry, V. (1979). Moral issues in business. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Pub. Co., pp.361-365. MacKinnon, B. (1995). Ethics. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Pub. Co. Parenethical.com, (2014). Equal Consideration for Animals « Introduction to Ethics. [online] Available at: http://parenethical.com/phil140sp11/2011/05/08/equal-consideration-for-animals/ [Accessed 25 Nov. 2014]. Stafforini, P. (2014). Equality for Animals?, by Peter Singer. [online] Utilitarian.net. Available at: http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1979----.htm [Accessed 25 Nov. 2014].

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Animals deserve rights because just like humans, they feel excruciating pain, suffer and have feelings. One would argue that animals don’t experience emotions? But the answer is of course they do. It is emotions that allow animals to display various behavior patterns. According to the theory of utilitarianism, all sentient beings should be given consideration in the society and this includes both animals and humans. Also, animals cannot speak for themselves and for this reason they should be treated equally, protected and given the same respect as human beings. Peter singer’s approach also supports the argument on equal consideration in that animals deserve the same respect as human beings but just in a different view. In today’s society humans exploit animals for milk, meat, fur, scientific experimentation etc. and animals are constantly injured or killed. Their pain and sufferings should be taken into consideration, as this unjust treatment is morally unacceptable. Similarly speciesism is an…

    • 476 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The first premise of his argument was that all human and non-human animals possess equal inherent value because they are all individuals experiencing life. His second premise is that possessing inherent value demands that these individuals have rights that should not be violated by others. The final premise of his argument is that any individual with rights must be treated equally and with respect. In this paper, I objected to his third premise by arguing that we humans should not interact with animals at all because we are not able to distinguish their perception of equality and…

    • 990 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    “Care Ethics and Animal Welfare” is an article written by Daniel Engster from the Journal of Social Philosophy, published by Wiley Periodicals in 2016. Daniel Engster received his PhD from the University of Chicago and is a professor in the Political Science department at the University of Texas in San Antonio.…

    • 441 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Steinbock Vs Singer

    • 722 Words
    • 3 Pages

    He dismisses the claim that the prospect of human wellbeing resulting from such experiments supercedes pain and suffering, which are inflicted to the animals. Instead he bluntly suggests that if we to consider ourselves more valuable only based on our intelligence, then those members of society, who by the virtue of their mental capacity stand on the lower scale of the intellegence abilities, would be less entitled to the fulfillment of their basic human rights. Singer points out that if our value was measured only in amount of our intelligence, then a person with lower IQ would have similar, or even lower, value with an animal, who hold some intellegence abilities. Therefore, he claims, it would be equally justifiable to use mentally challenged or animals in the research projects. Evidently, Singer dismisses the simple factual difference between the two examples. A random healthy adult person, an infant, who is orphan, or a mentally incapacitated, share the same certain privileges just by a sheer reason of belonging to the same group - human race, and are superior to a representative of a non-human animal world, no matter how intelligent in some sense it would…

    • 722 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Peter Singer Argument

    • 1055 Words
    • 5 Pages

    2. In “Animal Liberation”, Peter Singer argues that human suffering and animal suffering should be given equal consideration. He believes that a lot of our modern practices are speciesist, and that they hold our best interest above all else. The only animals that we give equal consideration are humans. He questions our reasonings for giving equal consideration to all members to our species, because, some people are more superior than others, in terms of intelligence or physical strength. Humans value themselves over…

    • 1055 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    Rhetorical Devices

    • 1472 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Perhaps the most important rhetorical aspect of each paper is the overall structure and order of the author’s ideas as they present their opinions and their purpose to the audience. Throughout Speciesism and Moral Status, Singer presents his information in a very specific way, beginning with the controversial statement that not all humans are above animals, and that there should be a…

    • 1472 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Phil. outline

    • 779 Words
    • 4 Pages

    i. Singer stresses the fact that the principle of utility gives animals moral standing, and gives their interests equal weight with the like interest of humans, but denies animals this equal moral standing.…

    • 779 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Peter Singer and his philosophy have received a range of praise and criticism for his progressive views. Some have called him the most dangerous man in the world, while others consider him a hero in the teachings of morality and ethics. His detractors make mention of his views on Animal Equality, blasting his comparisons of modern man’s treatment of animals to that of; slavery the Holocaust, human suffering and infanticide. Singer’s essay, All Animals Are Equal, poses the argument that all sentiment beings are entitled to the most basic of dignities and consideration, no different than those considerations reserved for humans. Singer draws no line of distinction between our species and other species who we, as humans…

    • 1249 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    week 2 DQ 1&2

    • 663 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Singer argues that there is no moral justification for denying moral consideration to animals. Can you think of a reason why our moral consideration should include all humans regardless of their level of cognitive ability, yet denied to non-human animals simply because they have lower levels of cognitive abilities (though still higher in some cases than those of human infants and some mentally disabled humans)? What response might he have to your way of drawing the line between the types of beings that should get moral consideration and those that should not?…

    • 663 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    It gives basic moral significance to things that are able to experience pain and pleasure. Human’s and non humans can most certainly experience pain and pleasure therefore we all deserve equality. Singer argues that we have a direct duty to animals, to include their interest in our moral reasoning. Whether or not animals can author treatises on mathematics they like us feel pain and we therefore have an obligation not to cause them needless suffering. Singer denounces all forms of what he calls “speciesism” whereby human beings believe they can exploit animals merely because they do not belong to the species homo sapiens. Just because animals aren’t homo sapiens doesn’t mean they are not equal. They have hearts, they pump blood, they breathe and they create life, these are all qualities us humans…

    • 759 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    One resource that we are provided with are animals which relate to Pete Singer’s argument that the treatment of animals is an ethical issue. Pete Singer, “argues that the principle of equality applies not just to humans, but also to animals. Therefore, according to Singer, if you accept that equality and impartiality are sound moral principles for governing human relations then you should accept that they are also sound when it comes to governing relations between humans and animals.” In Singer’s, The Ethics of What We Eat, he showed the traditional, enclosed way some animals are housed and fed on farms. He then presented an organic farm and the way animals are raised outside in a fenced space with a food house in the middle.…

    • 833 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Most of us believe that we are entitled to treat members of other species in ways which would be considered wrong if inflicted on members of our own species. We kill them for food, keep them confined, use them in painful experiments. The moral philosopher has to ask what relevant difference justifies this difference in…

    • 4954 Words
    • 20 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Taking a Stand Against Peta

    • 2615 Words
    • 11 Pages

    “We love all animals, it’s just people we’re not too crazy about,” is a comment made by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) (Fegan 1). This outrageous comment insinuates PETA puts animals’ rights before the rights and needs of humans, which is not the way nature intended. The PETA organization has been around since 1980 affectively with their hyped-up, illogical stories of how we need to treat animals as equals and grant them rights that only we, as humans, should enjoy. These are assumptions and claims which are used to further their cause and are not founded in reality. Contradictory to PETA’s beliefs, animals should not have the same rights as humans, because that is the law of nature. According to Erasmus Darwin, who stated “Such is the condition of organic nature! whose first law might be expressed in the words 'Eat or be eaten!”. (Science Quotes by Erasmus Darwin) I do not intend to condemn animal rights activists, since people are entitled to their own opinions, but rather discuss why this way of life may be harmful to themselves and others.…

    • 2615 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Utilitarianism treats human and nonhuman animal as same species, Sharfer-Landau (2015) explained, “utilitarians argue that animals are member of the moral community.” A qualification to be the moral community is to be able to suffer. Although nonhuman animal cannot talk like human nor express their feeling freely like human, yet they do suffer like human. Therefore, utilitarians consider human and nonhuman animal both as the moral community.…

    • 67 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    What does Singer mean by saying that all animals are equal? What does he mean by "speciesism," and how is it like racism and sexism?…

    • 1603 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays

Related Topics