Equality for Animals - Essay Example

?Should animals be given equal treatment as humans D. The term “prejudice against taking the interests of animals” has not been explained well with respect to what prejudices and how it relates to the whites’ differentiation against blacks. The comparison made here is vague therefore. The author argues a lot on the basis of the “blackness of skin” but the pain inflicted on animals is same or almost equal by whites and blacks, i.e. by human beings in general. Also, the suffering of the blacks is not just physical pain, it is also psychological, especially since they are discriminated against many facilities. In case of animals the mental or psychological aspect do not play much role. This differentiation has not been made because the animal equality is based mainly on physical torment aspect. He author mentions the point “not have interests because it cannot suffer” but here it is not clear as to what kind of interest he is talking of. The explanation provided in this context is ambiguous because talking of experiments on mice, it is essential in human interests. The author has not talked of conflict of interests or what decision should be taken when there is such a conflict. What interest can a mouse have in reducing human suffering? Similarly a man will have no interest in considering mouse’s suffering. This aspect has not been taken into consideration. 2E. The principle theme of this article is based on the concept of giving equal consideration to animals. The basic argument that Singer has mentioned in support of equal consideration of animals is the “principle of equal consideration of interests” (Singer, 1979). This principle indicates that every living being deserves equal treatment irrespective of their kind, size or power. There are several sub-arguments in this article. The first one is that although some animals like those animals with thick skins have the capacity to feel lesser degree of physical pain than human. However, Singer argues that this cannot be the ground of giving unequal consideration to animals. Secondly, animals are used for scientific experiments because they lack the fear of anticipation and also because they are not considered in the same category as humans. Singer argues that since human infants and retarded humans cannot be used for experiments, so animals should also be prohibited from experimenting. Thirdly, Singer argues that people should refrain from eating flesh of animals as this not a necessity. By killing animals for food they right of living is violated to serve the minor interests of humans. Fourthly, animals lack reasoning and so they are less self-conscious than humans. However, Singer argues that degree of self-consciousness cannot undermine the importance of giving equal consideration of interests. The main conclusion of this article is that in spite of all the differences between animals and humans, there should be equal consideration of interests. The main reason for this conclusion is that animals have the capacity to feel pain and suffering and so they should be considered equal to human beings in spite of their low intellectual level. Another reason is that humans have no right to use animals for the purpose of pleasure. 3F. Main concepts: Animals Equal treatment Main Conceptual Question: Should animals be given equal treatment as humans? Animals Equal treatment - have less intellectual power - have capacity to feel pain - do not have the fear of anticipation - are consumed by humans as food - are kept in unfavourable conditions to be converted into food - are used for scientific experiments - eat each other - Darwinian theory gives humans right to kill animals for food - can use tools and communicate like humans - equal consideration of interests - suffering of all beings must be given equal consideration - humans infants and retarded humans are not considered to be of same category like animals - use of animals as food is not a necessity but is more a luxury - people should choose vegetarian way of life in order to maintain the equal consideration of interests - it is wrong to sacrifice animals for the benefit of human beings - humans should not eat animals just because animals eat each other - Darwinian theory has a mistake of fact and an error of reasoning - interests should be given equal consideration whether they are of self-conscious or non-self-conscious animals 3G. Singer has used various concepts to elaborate his main argument. The first concept is that animals deserve equal consideration like humans. The second concept is that pain of animals should be given equal care irrespective of the difference in degree of pain with humans. The third concept is that humans should change their dietary habits to refrain from eating the flesh of animals. The fourth concept is that animals should not be used for scientific experiments. The fifth concept is that although animals lack reasoning still their interests must be given equal consideration. All the concepts are clearly defined in the article. They are explained appropriately so that they can be clearly understood. A paragraph is designated to each concept so that the meaning of each concept does not scatter in the entire article. Most of the concepts are presented from more than one angle to clearly define the matter of each concept. 4. The specific argument that has been elaborated in the entire article is the equal consideration of interests. This argument supports the overall argument which is animals must be given equal consideration like human beings. In defense of the above arguments, Singer has said that humans have no right to exploit animals, and that animals in spite of their difference in intellectual level and lack of reasoning deserves equal consideration like humans. The sub arguments are: animals should fall under same category like human infants and retarded humans, suffering of all beings should be given equal treatment, humans should not eat the flesh of animals, and interests of animals should be given equal consideration in spite of their lack of reasoning. In this article, one unstated premise is the value of logic which implies that any argument that explains that all humans have the right to be treated with respect, should also imply that animals have the same right. Acceptability criteria violation “Those who believe in absolute rights might hold that it is always wrong to sacrifice one being, whether human or animal, for the benefit of another” What is absolute right? How can right be defined? The idea of being right varies from one to another. If animal experiment is not carried out one is sacrificing a human life despite knowing the possible remedy. So how can this be explained? Any serious and clear fallacies? “We can never directly experience the pain of another being, whether that being is human or not.” – hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient reason) “Since no account of the origin of morality compels us to base our morality on reciprocity, and since no other arguments in favour of this conclusion have been offered, we should reject this view of ethics.” – fallacy involving person (two wrongs make one right) “The lives of free-ranging animals are undoubtedly better than those of animals reared in factory farms.” – fallacy undermining argumentation process -- loaded presupposition. Neutralizing a fallacy Main conclusion - “For those of us living in cities where it is difficult to know how the animals we might eat have lived and died, this conclusion brings us very close to a vegetarian way of life.” Identify reason for the main point: since one cannot know whether an animal was farm raised by human beings or raised as free stocks, hence we cannot decide whether to kill them. Therefore as a better option it might be safer to become vegetarian. Identify the fallacy: loaded presupposition Identify criteria for the fallacy: just because one cannot understand if an animal is farm raised or raised as free stock cannot be enough reason to become a vegetarian for a person. It is presupposing that the people concerned here will take into account the way a cattle was raised up in order to justify its killing. It will depend on personal choice. Also what might happen if the person can ensure that the cattle are farm raised and hence morally justified to feed on? It cannot be presupposed that the origin of the animal will be unknown and on that basis one cannot suggest being a vegetarian. Challenging the fallacy: The argument does not provide enough ground and violates the “sufficiency criterion” with respect to “fallacy of presumptions”. It is presumed that a person living in the city cannot understand if the animal is farm raised or raised freely. This is not true as there are brands and outlets where people can be convinced that the animal is farm raised, but here trust plays a great role since a person might be satisfied to buy a chicken form Springer Mountain outlet, but one also needs to understand if at all the chicken he is served with was farm raised at all. Again, does it provide enough reason to become vegetarian? A person might become vegetarian irrespective of whether the animal is farm raised or not because he or she wants to boycott animal suffering altogether and knowing how poor animals are raised in a farm they would prefer not to eat and promote the same by demand creation. Here lies the fallacy of the argument. Can some of the arguments be made stronger? On page 6, third paragraph, the idea of right or absolute right needs to be explained clearly. The idea of being right differs as per individuals’ perspectives. This needs to be taken into consideration. The term “absolute right” used is vague here. In the second paragraph on page 7, the argument can be improved by saying that the level of pain varies from one person to another but one can understand definitely how a horse might feel when whipped and accordingly avoid the situation. One can also improve the argument by stating that since it is difficult to feel exactly what another will feel in the same treatment, it is always better to consider whether it will be a good or bad feeling no matter to what degree or extent. Anything that generates pain should be avoided altogether. The last sentence of the article is not very clear. More explanation is required in order to avoid the fallacy of what apparently seems to be two wrongs making one right. 5. Analysis Principle of equal consideration of interests The subject matter of providing equal consideration to animals has been supported by Singer in the form of a simple argument, and that is “principle of equal consideration of interests” (Singer, 1979). Just as people belonging to lower caste or having black skin or having low level of intelligence does not give others the right to exploit them, similarly since animals have less intellectual power than human species does not give any right to humans to disregard them. Suffering of all beings must be given equal consideration Jeremy Bentham who was the founding father of modern utilitarianism had implied that capacity to feel pain must be there in any living being before interests of that being can be established. This brings to another statement made by Singer: “If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration” (Singer, 1979). Singer has explained this by explaining how principle of equality is violated by racists. People of one race focus more on interests of people from their own race, like white people do not think that blacks feel pain with same intensity as them. Similarly, human beings do not accept that pain is felt in similar manner by both humans and animals. Singer however accepts the belief that level of intensity of feeling pain is more in human beings than in animals. However, he disagrees that the difference of degree of pain between humans and animals should in any way undermine the need of equal treatment of interests of animals. Singer says that principle of equal consideration of interests should be applied to all species of living beings although priority must be given to those who have greater capacity to feel pain. He has illustrated with the example of a horse and a humans baby to explain the concept of “the same amount of pain” (Singer, 1979). If slap is given to a horse then it will feel almost no pain because of its thick skin, but a slap with equal force if given to a baby can cause extreme pain. However, if a horse is hit by a stick then it may feel the same kind of pain as the baby. Therefore the author explained by this example that if it is considered wrong to slap a baby then it is wrong to hit a horse with a stick since the pains caused will be of equal intensity. Humans infants and retarded humans are not considered to be of same category like animals In many situations, human beings have the mental capacity to feel more pain than animals. For instance, if normal adult human beings visiting a certain park are regularly kidnapped for lethal scientific experiments, then it will create panic among other adults who will enter the park in anticipation of being kidnapped. However, this fear of anticipation will not exist in animals on whom same experiments will be performed. Although this does not prove that experiments on living beings are ethical, it however does imply that animals can be chosen over adult human beings for experiments for the absence of fear of anticipation. However, complications arise because this logic has every reason to be applied on human infants and retarded humans who like animals cannot know in advance that they will be used for experiments. Singer has then explained that there are many facets of human mental power that has established a difference between humans and animals. However, every case does not imply that human beings suffer more than animals. For instance war prisoners can be convinced that if they submit to capture then they will not be tortured. This is not the same in case of wild animals when captured, as same thing cannot be explained to them which makes those animals fear in anticipation of getting killed. This principle of comparing suffering gives rise to many criticisms since there cannot be any precise comparison. However, Singer does not stress on precision as he explains that equal treatment to animals can be given only to the extent that major interests of humans do not suffer. Use of animals as food is not a necessity but is more a luxury Most people in this modern society consume animals as food. When seen from the perspective of animal rights, use of animals as food is not a necessity and is more a luxury. In a modern industrialized society, there are alternative forms of food available. Moreover, scientific research has proved that animal flesh does not guarantee “good health and longetivity” (Singer, 1979). Therefore, other than animals who graze in open fields like sheep and beef cattle, flesh of animals are consumed not for health reasons but for luxury as people like the taste of animal flesh. If the subject is on animal ethics, then consuming animal flesh serve minor interests of humans which can be sacrificed to serve the major interests of animals like protecting their lives. People should choose vegetarian way of life in order to maintain the equal consideration of interests In most cases, animals are kept in unfavourable conditions for procuring their meat and society accepts this due to lack of other methods to produce meat at lowest cost. This situation is explained by the statement “cruelty is acknowledged only when profitability ceases” (Singer, 1979). Singer has emphasized that such practices must be abolished to avoid speciesism. However, Singer insists that it does not mean humans have to confine themselves to vegetarian diet since animals that graze in open fields can be used for food. Even this is not ethical as using animals as food means they have to be killed which means their value of life is undermined. Other than this, there are other activities involved that leads to suffering of animals like “castration, the separation of mother and young, the breaking up of herds, branding, trans­porting, and finally the moments of slaughter” (Singer, 1979). However the principle question is not whether meat is procured in humane manner, the question is whether meat that is consumed has been obtained without having the animals to suffer. Since, city dwellers cannot know the method of how animals they eat are killed, therefore the conclusion that can be arrived to is that people should choose vegetarian way of life in order to maintain the equal consideration of interests. It is wrong to sacrifice animals for the benefit of human beings The practice of using animals for scientific experiments is one area where equal consideration of animal interests is mostly violated. In many cases, animals are killed for purposes that are unnecessary or for products whose alternatives are available like developing new kinds of shampoos and cosmetics. Moreover, there are also cases where university experiments on animals are conducted whose results do not or most probably do not provide any benefits to humans. In these cases, the experiments fail to comply with the principle of equal consideration of interests. Singer now considers a hypothetical situation. It may happen that a dozen animals have to be killed for experimentation whose result will be innovation of a medicine that can save thousands of human beings from a terrible disease. In such case the killing can be justified and can be in accordance with equal consideration of interests. However, in the views of those who believe in absolute rights “it is always wrong to sacrifice one being, whether humans or animal, for the benefit of another” (Singer, 1979). Another view that goes against such experiments is that same experiments cannot be performed on humans orphans with irreversible brain damage. Singer stresses that if such biased-ness can be eliminated, then experimentation on animals can be reduced to a large extent. In a small section, Smith goes on to explain that animals certainly have the capacity to feel pain. This is because “the nervous systems of all vertebrates, and especially of birds and mammals, are fundamentally similar” (Singer, 1979). Also, animals’ reaction to pain is similar to that of human beings although they are in most cases unable to communicate their pain. However in case of humans infants also there is absence of the ability to communicate their feeling of pain. Therefore, if adult humans take care that infants are not hurt in any way then same care should be shown towards animals in consideration of equal interests. Humans should not eat animals just because animals eat each other The fact that animals eat each other cannot be reason for consuming flesh of animals. This reasoning can be invalidated on two grounds as explained by Singer: a) animals do not have other alternatives or rather they do not have the capacity to consider any available alternatives other than killing each other to satisfy their hunger, and 2) humans often indicate animal behavior as ‘beastly’ and on that ground it is not morally right to follow their behaviour. Darwinian theory has a mistake of fact and an error of reasoning Singer refers to Darwinian theory of ‘survival of the fittest’ which is often considered as logical reasoning by human beings when they kill animals to consume their flesh. They think humans have the right to treat animals in any way because of the natural law that stronger can dominate the weaker. However this theory has two fundamental mistakes. The first mistake is factual because consumption of animal flesh is not a result of natural law because of the way domestic animals are produced in farms. Then there is error of reasoning which implies that if animals are killed in natural process then humans have the right to consume them. This kind of reasoning violates the principle of equal consideration of interests. Human beings have always assumed that there is a huge difference between humans and animals and the general belief is that the difference lies in kind rather than degree. Modern observations of animal life have refuted this belief because it has been proved that this claim is wrong that only human beings make and use tools or that only human can communicate through language. It has been proved that animals like dolphins and whales communicate using a complex language of their own. Singer, however emphasizes that even if the assumed differences between humans and animals did exist, it does not carry any moral weight. Just because human beings are able to use tools or can communicate in languages does not give humans the right to ignore the suffering of animals. Interests should be given equal consideration whether they are of self-conscious or non-self-conscious animals According to some philosophers animals lack the ability to think reasonably and so are without self-consciousness. Singer claims that this subject complies with the principle of equal consideration of interests only if the pain caused to self-conscious beings causes more suffering than if the same pain is caused to beings that are not self-conscious like animals. The author also attempts to look at this matter from another angle: self-conscious beings like human beings are considered more valuable than beings without self-consciousness like animals. Singer defies this theory by saying that there is no logic in this consideration, and even if this is accepted still it does not explain why minor interests of self-conscious beings should be given more importance than the major interests of beings without self-consciousness. To explain that degree of self-consciousness does not have any impact on the nature of interests of living beings, Singer has asserted that “interests are interests, and ought to be given equal consideration whether they are the interests of humans or nonhumans animals, self-conscious or non-self-conscious animals” (Singer, 1979). Reference Singer, P. (1979) Practical Ethics, chap.3, Cambridge Read More