The Term Equality in Regard to Animals - Essay Example

 Paper 3 The article by Peter Singer provides an analysis of the issue of morality and equality of all living animals. Singer makes the argument that “equality does not depend on intelligence, moral capacity, physical strength, or similar matter” and claims that “the interests of every being affected by an action are to be taken into account and given the same weight as the like interests of any other being” (Principle of Equality). Singer shows that equality is based on the capacity of suffering and Principle of Equality should be extended to non-human animals. This paper aims to point out that treating humans and non-human animals equally by observing Principle of Equality is arbitrary and leads to absurd consequences. Therefore, it is necessary to refute the applicability of Singer’s Principle of Equality. In the following sections, I will first explain Singer’s view and show that I am against it in my own words in order to be more precise. I will also point out one main ambiguity related to my view in his argument in order to clarify which exact disambiguation I disprove. Then, I will propose my objection to his view and explain why I think it is a good one. The last section will include a strong response that I think an advocate of Singer’s view would possibly respond to my objection and the explanation why it does make a good point. 1. Singer’s view of Principle of Equality In his article All animals are equal, Singer argues that if racism and sexism are wrong, then so does speciesism. He claims that if all humans should be treated equally, then, equality is not about equal rights based on difference of “intelligence, moral capacity, physical strength, or similar matters of fact.” Instead, he argues that equality is based on equal concern. According to Singer, the Principle of Equality states that “the interests of every being affected by an action are to be taken into account and given the same weight as the like interests of any other being.” Moreover,in the article, Singer notes, “In otherwords, I am arguing that we extend to other species thebasic principle of equality that most of us recognize should be extended to all members of our own species” (Singer, 2). Therefore, according to the combination of the two views, Singer claims that humans must give the same respect to identical interests of all beings that have ability to“suffer or experience enjoyment or happiness” (ability to feel pain and pleasure). He argues that the Principle of Equality is the only non-arbitrary way to treat other creatures. Here is an ambiguity, Singer mentions that “not many of them have recoginized that this principle applies to members of other species as well as to our own.” Is this Principle of Equality the only non-arbitrary way for human to treat all other species that are sentient (ability to feel), for every species to treat species that are sentient, or for species that are sentient to treat each other? According to what Singer claims in his article, the basis of equality is equal consideration. For example, dog should not be given rights to vote because they do not understand voting. Therefore, those species that are not sentient should not be asked to observe principles beyond their capability. The main argument of this article is that “all animals are equal.” If human beings should observe the Principle of Equality, then non-human beings including animals should observe this principle too. 2. My objection My objection is not against Singer’s main view that all animals are equal but only his argument that the Principle of Equality is the only non-arbitrary way for all species that have interests (sentience) to treat each other. I think it is an arbitrary way because Singer only considers humans as the agent (the ‘doer” of the action) and considers non-human animals as the theme (the ‘undergoer’ of the action), but fails to consider situations if non-human animals are the agent and humans are the theme. Well, if humans suddenly choose to treat animals by giving them the same respect, is it even possible for non-human animals to treat humans exactly the same way? The answer is absolutely no because non-human animals have not developed intellectual capacity like human beings. Humans strive to be equal because of their high levels of development which allows them to interact on an intellectual basis. The human society is stratified and structured in such a way that there are rules. These rules govern the behavior and conduct of humans. Anyone who breaks the law is subjected to legal and disciplinary measures under the law. This is not the case for animals since human beings are the ones who determine howanimals will live. It is the humans who exercise control over animals since animals cannot control themselves without interference by men.The Principle of Equaliy is unequal to humans because the moment we choose to treat them equally by giving them the same respect is equal to the moment we decide to kill ourselves and get ready to give up ethics. Non-human animals cannot make rational decisions like humans do. For example, lets imagine this situation, there is a really hungry tiger in front of a man and the tiger is coming over with its mouth snarling and drooling. This man is so strong and holding a gun. He keeping saying that “We should treat each other equally because you and I can suffer or experience enjoyment or happiness, I would not kill you with my gun because you would not want to suffer so you should not eat me too!” Even though it is possible that one day humans are able to solve the issue of speech and translate humans ‘languages into non-human animals’languages that they understand us, the hungry tiger would eat the man anyway and the man would not even fight back. He cannot kill the tiger because it would suffer. If he chooses to observe the Principle of Equality, he would die. Brutality is the nature of animals including humans. The main difference between humans and non-human animals is that humans can control themselves. This tiger only knows that it is very hungry and there is fresh meat right in front of it. It does not care about how its behavior would cause humans to kill them. It is driven by instinct and desires and not constrained by the Principle of Equality. In the article, Singer accuses humans of killing non-human animals for pleasing their palate. He says it is not equal to them. Therefore, aren’t non-human animals eating humans unequal to humans? Extending equal rights to animals cannot be possible since the assumption does not take into consideration the reaction of animals to whom the equal rights will be extended. Animals do not possess the knowledge to recognize that some rights have been extended to them. And it would lead to a disaster (death of humans) if only humans understand it and observe it. 2. Response to the objection An advocate of Singer’s view might argue that observing the Principle of Equaliy would not be a disaster such as death of humans because humans are intelligent to use tools to protect themselves from non-human animals. There are a lot of examples in daily life.We put up signs warning people about animals in some regions where animals always appear. In Thailand, people use brim stone (sulphur) to keep snakes from their houses. Also, we put our dogs on the leash in case they become aggressive and try to bite humans. In those cases, we are not hurting them or making them suffer while protecting ourselves at the same time.Therefore, people are intelligent enough to observe the Principle of Equality as well as protect themselves from non-human animals. I think it is a strong response to my objection, since there could be certain situations that humans and non-human animals can peacefully live together on earth without hurting each other. Conclusion In this paper, I argued against Singer’s view that the Principle of Equality “the interests of every being affected by an action are to be taken into account and given the same weight as the like interests of any other being” is the only non-arbitrary way for all species that are sentient to treat each other. I think the principle is unequal and cannot be extended to all animals. First, I clarified the main ambiguity in his view, which is an unclear agent and theme, and choose one disambiguation to argue that I think Singer accepts. Then, I put forward an objection that I think is strong enough to reject his view. Moreover, I gave a response to my objection, which I think makes a good point. In my opinion, the Principle of Equality is not the accurate way for all species that have interests (sentience) to treat each other because it is not an equal principle in the first place. Works Cited Singer, Peter (1989). All Animals Are Equal. In Tom Regan & Peter Singer (eds.), Animal Rights and Human Obligations. Oxford University Press. 215--226. Read More