Peter Singer: Sentience vs Self-Conciousness
“Explain Singer's distinction between sentience and self-consciousness, and what the distinction implies for the moral status of animals. Do you believe non-human animals have the same or a different moral status to human animals? Explain the basis of your answer.”
More than three decades ago Peter Singer heralded the need for a new kind of liberation movement, one calling for a radical expansion of the human moral canvas and more importantly, a rejection of the horrors human beings have inflicted for millennia upon other sentient beings, treatment historically considered as being both natural and unalterable. Often regarded as being the father of the modern animal liberation movement, Singer contends that the campaign for animal liberation today is analogous to the struggles for racial and gender justice of the past. (1976, p. 34-36) This essay will attempt to highlight the distinctions made by Singer between sentience and self-conciousness and what implications such a distinction suggests for the moral status of animals. Furthermore, this essay will attempt to identify and contrast the moral status of animals with that of human animals and identify the bases of such standing in ethical deliberation.
“The value of life is a notoriously difficult ethical question.” (1993, p. 62). However, like all utilitarians, Singer applies the 'greatest happiness principle' in order to begin addressing this dilemma. Utilitarian ethics dictates that we make decisions in such a way so as they result in the greatest net utility (or happiness) for the greatest number and this Singer regards as being the true only measure of good or ethical behaviour. Singer contends that there is no reason why such considerations considerations should not be extended to other animals. The term 'speciesism' was first popularised by Singer to label the prejudice of privileging humans and their interests over those of other animals. Singer's utilitarian viewpoint is grounded in what he commonly
More than three decades ago Peter Singer heralded the need for a new kind of liberation movement, one calling for a radical expansion of the human moral canvas and more importantly, a rejection of the horrors human beings have inflicted for millennia upon other sentient beings, treatment historically considered as being both natural and unalterable. Often regarded as being the father of the modern animal liberation movement, Singer contends that the campaign for animal liberation today is analogous to the struggles for racial and gender justice of the past. (1976, p. 34-36) This essay will attempt to highlight the distinctions made by Singer between sentience and self-conciousness and what implications such a distinction suggests for the moral status of animals. Furthermore, this essay will attempt to identify and contrast the moral status of animals with that of human animals and identify the bases of such standing in ethical deliberation.
“The value of life is a notoriously difficult ethical question.” (1993, p. 62). However, like all utilitarians, Singer applies the 'greatest happiness principle' in order to begin addressing this dilemma. Utilitarian ethics dictates that we make decisions in such a way so as they result in the greatest net utility (or happiness) for the greatest number and this Singer regards as being the true only measure of good or ethical behaviour. Singer contends that there is no reason why such considerations considerations should not be extended to other animals. The term 'speciesism' was first popularised by Singer to label the prejudice of privileging humans and their interests over those of other animals. Singer's utilitarian viewpoint is grounded in what he commonly