Flaws of Peter Singer's Arguments
James Perlas
Rhet 130
First Draft Final Paper
In this essay, I’d like to argue against the general movement concerning animal rights. This movement aims to give animals more rights than is necessary. One of the main people who advocate this movement is Peter Singer. Singer uses many logical arguments that are reasoned and well thought out but are flawed and it will be very useful to show how the animal liberation movement is misguided and unrealistic. Peter Singer makes his first point in arguing how humans are animals just as much as cats and rabbits are. He states how the using the term of ‘animal’ refers to non-human animals which include cats, dogs, and even insects. Singer says that there is a slight distinction between animals and humans and that there is no reason to give one more moral weight to the ‘interests’ of one to another. He uses the example of racial and sexual discrimination to compare the situation. Singer says that even though colors of people and gender can be different in many ways, whether it’s genetically or environmentally, they still need to have their ‘interests’ considered equally. He defines having ‘interests’ as having the ability to experience suffering and enjoyment. In applying moral principles, Singer uses the reasoning that any being that is given moral status, must have that same moral status applied to every other being. With this in mind, he uses it to justify all genders and races to have equal political and moral rights. There’s nothing wrong with his argument until he says that since there’s no difference between humans and animals, and since there’s no discrimination between blacks and whites that they should not be exempt from being equal. Singer says that it is necessary for a being to have interest to be able to qualify for moral status. He uses a stone as an example of something without interests which therefore does not qualify for moral status. Since it has no awareness or reaction to its
Rhet 130
First Draft Final Paper
In this essay, I’d like to argue against the general movement concerning animal rights. This movement aims to give animals more rights than is necessary. One of the main people who advocate this movement is Peter Singer. Singer uses many logical arguments that are reasoned and well thought out but are flawed and it will be very useful to show how the animal liberation movement is misguided and unrealistic. Peter Singer makes his first point in arguing how humans are animals just as much as cats and rabbits are. He states how the using the term of ‘animal’ refers to non-human animals which include cats, dogs, and even insects. Singer says that there is a slight distinction between animals and humans and that there is no reason to give one more moral weight to the ‘interests’ of one to another. He uses the example of racial and sexual discrimination to compare the situation. Singer says that even though colors of people and gender can be different in many ways, whether it’s genetically or environmentally, they still need to have their ‘interests’ considered equally. He defines having ‘interests’ as having the ability to experience suffering and enjoyment. In applying moral principles, Singer uses the reasoning that any being that is given moral status, must have that same moral status applied to every other being. With this in mind, he uses it to justify all genders and races to have equal political and moral rights. There’s nothing wrong with his argument until he says that since there’s no difference between humans and animals, and since there’s no discrimination between blacks and whites that they should not be exempt from being equal. Singer says that it is necessary for a being to have interest to be able to qualify for moral status. He uses a stone as an example of something without interests which therefore does not qualify for moral status. Since it has no awareness or reaction to its