Are All Animals Created Equal - Essay Example

Are all animals equal? On the level of moral philosophy, debating about equality of animals still remains contestable and questionable. There are certain paradigms that clash each other and there is also an occurrence of certain shifting between these paradigms that give rise to further complexity about the matter. Peter Singer suggested that equality should be assessed on giving consideration about how we treat humans (1989, p. 149). It implies that there is an in-depth understanding of the context of the humans and animals. It puts a premium on condition of the individual before implementing actions and judgments that may be problematic for the one who is experiencing the said condition. Given this premise, he shows that the setting in which the animals work from must be considered standpoint before these animals are subjected to acts that is proven detrimental and harsh that will give rise to pain and pleasure (Singer 1989, p. 149). This provides that there must be a certain understanding of the act being done towards them like slaughtering for consumption purposes and experimentation in the medical. These acts invariably highlight that humans are superior from other species and they have the freedom to do such act since these animals are means to an end (Steinbock 1978, p. 253). The aforementioned condition shows that in order for equality to be achieved, there must be an elimination of suffering. However, Singer failed to consider that the conditions of suffering, pain and pleasure for animals is not really the same to that of humans since humans have an intrinsic capacity that animals do not have: rational thinking (Steinbock 1978, p. 254). This rational thinking gives way for humans to have a very utilitarian approach on animals (Singer 1989, p. 150). Utilitarianism tries to ensure that humans maximize the things present around them to achieve their needs and desires (Armstrong 2007, p. 2). Given this scenario, there is nothing that appears to be problematic since this only ensures that humans achieve and gain what they need like food for them survive. However, humans, in most cases, failed to understand and appreciate the findings of modern science like the consumption of alternatives to animal meat like soy beans (Singer 1989, p. 152). Since they have failed to recognize the presence of the innovations in the food industry that can mitigate the necessity to slaughter animals, they constantly resort to a very hedonistic nature of things in which the problems rise. There will be constant lavishing of animal meat and it is considered moral for some individuals under a utilitarian perspective. This is indeed true because this has been the convention of human beings for years. The maximization of the utilitarian approach allows them to use it for abuse and do not consider the effects of it. This will eventually lead to degrading of virtue ethics which are important for us to determine if our act is already morally wrong or right (Hursthouse 2006, p. 4). This presence of virtue ethics allow us to think things carefully before engaging in such actions that can be problematic because our rational thinking allows us to do so (Hursthouse 2006, p. 5). In the case of animals, there are already movements that recognize the animals’ intrinsic qualities wherein laws have been passed to protect them. If analysed carefully, this can be considered as something to be commendable since people have started to recognize that animals have capacity for feelings too and there is an attempt to clear superiority over other species (Singer 1989, p. 156). There is nothing wrong to recognize this situation. There is an attempt to clear the ambivalence between the separations of humans from other species. Since this has occurred, people have started to cross the line in order to understand further the nature of animals. Even if this has occurred, it still cannot be avoided that humans till act superior over animals and this problem is relatively the same about the problems of equality humans have faced like racism and sexism (Singer 1989, p. 148). Nevertheless, the case of racism and sexism are isolated cases at some extent since it caters more on the human species alone and there is minimal involvement with the non-humans so to speak. However, for Peter Singer, another form of oppression that becomes a hindrance to equality has been formed and probably existent before certain people wanted to treat animals equally: speciesism (1989, p. 152). In this paradigm, people always regarded themselves superior. For Steinbock, there is nothing wrong about the feeling of being superior for humans because of an entitlement that human beings are in “a privileged position in the moral community is a certain minimal level of intelligence, which is a prerequisite for morally relevant capacities” (1978, p. 254). As for this case, this already provides the premise that humans are far more responsible to their actions in comparison to animals since the thinking capacity gives them an obligation to do so and prevents any drawback on them in the long run. As the consequentialist theory suggest, people have been conscious in thinking before they act (Armstrong 2007, p. 20). There is a system of checks and balances present in the society that does not allow abusive levels of freedom to be superior in terms of intelligence (Steinbock 1978, p. 255). In spite of the fact that there is a presence of these checks and balances, it is still inevitable that humans are in the command. Even if we wanted to accord equality to animals in its fullest scale possible, this cannot guarantee that animals will have the thinking capacity that is needed. People must still consider that even if animals suffering must not be tolerated, their savagery can prove to be detrimental and risky for us (Singer 1989, p. 147). This savagery is innate to them even if certain animals like dogs and cats can be domesticated as pets. However, what seems to be good about this condition is that humans are still considerate to other animals. In my opinion, it is too idealistic to accord equality to all animals since some of them are used to utilize human operations like farming, to provide a venue for recreation as seen in zoos and to be kept as personal pets. Given the scenario before, people must realize that there is an innate responsibility that comes along with the caring of pets. Maybe there is nothing wrong to kill animals for utilitarian and survival purpose. The most important thing to consider is that people must have an innate understanding of animals and provide self-regulating mechanism as it is assumed to be a moral responsibility to accord a just and humane treatment. I have to agree with Singer when he asserted that equality must grounded more on the condition and situation of other animals the same way we talk about looking for equality amongst humans (Singer 1989, p. 154). What seems to be the most important thing is the presence of a humane treatment and consideration to animals whenever we humans assert our superiority since it is considered to be crucial for them because of our rational thinking capacities. In the end, I believe in two things: (1) equality is a very idealistic assertion that does not tailor fit in the conditions of society since inequality will be present and (2) responsibility will never be a burden but a mechanism for humans to have checks and balances. With regards to number one, our superior thinking capacity is already makes us superior which already cannot accord and equal status between us and the animals per se. However, there is an intrinsic condition for us to be responsible about other animals. The superiority that we have over animals should not be a ground for us to exploit them inhumanely in order to please ourselves. In the end, humans and animals must coexist. That is ultimately the best thing that most of us can have since harmony exists. BIBLIOGRAPHY Singer, Peter. (1989), All Animals are Equal. Animal Rights and Human Obligations. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. pp. 148-162. Steinbock, Bonnie. (1978), Speciesism and the Idea of Equality. Philosophy. Vol. 53, No. 204. Cambridge University Press, England. pp. 247 – 256. Hursthouse, Rosalind. (2006). Virtue Ethics. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Stanford University Press, California. Armstrong, Walter. (2007). Consequentialism. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Stanford University Press, California. Read More