Critical Commentary on Artical Related to Philosophical Bioethics by Peter Singer - Assignment Example

This paper is in response to Peter Singer’s article, “All Animals are created equal”. I evaluate the points and the arguments put forward by the author in support of his thesis statement and critique the article with the parameters given below. Essentially, the author’s line of argument about the equality of all humans and the recent rise in the movements that seek the same are analysed from a critical perspective. In recent years, the question of bioethics as it relates to the use of animals for medical testing and being used as guinea pigs for experimentation purposes has raised many issues related to the treatment of animals. This paper looks at the author’s contentions for and against the debate over bioethics. The purpose of the article is first elaborated and then the line of argument taken by the author and the examples referred to are analysed. Peter Singer’s article is a defence of the post-modern school of thought that considers the equality of the entire species as opposed to the preferential treatment of humans over animals. The Enlightenment era saw the evolution of human thought and its consequent emphasis on the rights of all humans though it was much later that women and blacks were treated equally with men and whites. The fact that humanists like Peter Singer advocate the equality of animals along with that of humans represents the next step in evolution of our thought processes to include the concepts of justice and equality to the other members of the species as well. The purpose of the article is to examine the concept of equality of humans and non-humans (animals). The author compares the conditions for equality and puts forward his points about why certain categories of humans are deemed to be superior to the others and why animals are treated differently from humans. The author examines the issue from multiple perspectives of different philosophers and puts forward his own hypotheses regarding the same. Though the article might look like it is a defence of equality among humans, the main thesis of the article is about the reasons for considering the equality of animals along with humans. The author’s purpose in writing the article seems to be motivated by a desire to put his view point on the issue of equality of human life and animal life. The author’s contention go beyond the normal reasoning about the dignity of life as such and the author examines the position of equality of humans inter alia with that of animals. As the author states in his introduction, his position that the equality movements that currently campaign for equality among different categories of humans should be extended to the members of other species as well. By “members of other species”, the author is making the case for equality of animals and his use of the phrase “members of species other than our own” indicates his desire to view the animal kingdom as part of our collective species that inhabit the earth and not merely calling them as separate. The purpose of the article is also to point out the fallacies of the opponents of the liberation movement and their opposition to including animals in the discussion about the rights of humans and animals. As the author states, it is facile to think that equality for humans and animals is implausible since animals do not have the reasoning and mental faculties that we associate with humans and hence they should be treated differently. On the other hand, the author’s main point is that there is no such thing as intrinsic dignity that can be applied only to humans and that animals are somehow inferior when it comes to the issue of being treated equally. In this section, I look at some of the lines of argument that the author uses to advance his thesis. These relate to the ones that were outlined above as well as the point of defence that is used by the author to justify his stance. For instance, one of the key points of the author is that the concept of intrinsic dignity cannot be applied to differentiate between animals and humans. The line of reasoning that humans have intrinsic dignity that is absent in animals would be ignoring the fact that all humans do not behave the same way. In such a case, the behaviour of people like Stalin and Hitler cannot be compared to that of the other humans and hence intrinsic dignity falls flat on the face. By the same measure, the author’s contention is that suffering should be taken as the point of departure for judging the way we treat animals and humans. His point is that a mouse suffers as much as a human and it is certainly within its interest to avoid suffering as much as human seeks to avoid it. This point has been borne out in several experiments involving animals where the animals consciously tried to avoid the pain inflicted on them by the biologists who wanted to study the effects of a new drug on the rodents or other animals before releasing the drug for human use. And this is where the author is at his best. He takes the question of whether the abolitionist would be prepared to let thousands of people die just to save one animal from the lab. The author turns the argument on its head by stating that whether we would allow the experiments to be carried out on an orphan infant (he chooses the orphan to exclude the parental feelings associated with such an endeavour) and let him or her die so that other humans can benefit from the drug that is being developed. This is a tricky example and the author knows very well that the answers to these questions are not black and white. The point that the author is trying to make is that there is no one law for humans and another law for animals as both members of the species have the same element of suffering and the fact that adult apes, mice and other mammals are equally capable of being aware of their plight and that this is something that should weigh on the conscience of those who are advocating the testing of drugs on animals. The line of reasoning that the author makes here is that by promoting equality among a particular group, the movements for equality tend to promote the interests of their own and hence fall prey to the very bias that they accuse the opponents. In these cases, the argument that special considerations apply to certain categories of people since they have been disadvantaged historically might very well lead to the point that animals have been treated unfairly as well. Hence, the issue of bias is much more pronounced as the people who fight for the rights of members of their class or category overlook this point in their arguments. The line of argument that the author puts forward is also evident in the fact that he uses William Franken’s article about “The Concept of Social Justice” that he cites to put forward the argument that since the article talks about all humans being equal since they have the same emotions and needs, what is it that animals do not have in relation to humans. On another note, he also takes the example of a rock not having feelings which cannot be said of animals. Hence, the author’s contention that humans and animals share the same set of emotions and that both of these members of the species need to be treated in equal measure. The underlying assumptions of the article and the author’s points of view relate to the way in which we treat humans and animals differently by virtue of holding up the principles of dignity and the article questions the foundation on which our treatment of animals differs from that of our fellow humans. The article represents a progression from considering ourselves as members of human race to considering ourselves as members of a species that includes animals as well. However, a critical note on this assumption would be to take the author’s point and extend it to plant and the biosphere which would take us to tricky questions regarding the competing merits of survival versus the concept of equality. The assumption that humans are different from animals is something that Singer is uncomfortable with. He questions the notion of hierarchy and structure within the human and animal kingdom and goes so far as to suggest that the distinctions might be superficial in as much as they relate to the perceived capacity for so-called higher capacities of humans that animals do not have. However, recent research has shown that apes and other members of their ilk do have social tendencies as well as an innate capacity to learn and remember words. This brings us to the question whether these categories of animals are better than the rest and we would be walking into the same trap that the author warns us against. Hence, the point that is being made here is that though the author’s contentions regarding the sacredness of all life, humans and animals alike is noble and convincing, the fact that there exists divisions among people as they exist among the animals is worth considering as well. This is particularly so from the point of view of the Darwinists who view human and animal evolution as a series of progressions reaching its pinnacle with the humans. And once humans are thought to be the end point of nature’s evolution, they are endowed with a separateness that confers them certain privileges that include and justify the treatment of other species in a manner that is conducive to the interests of the dominant group. The author gives the example of eating animals and experimenting on them as instances of species-ism that is prevalent in the world. The other form of this is the way in which philosophy has to question the assumptions behind such instances of behaviour. What I am trying to say is that without conceding the debate to the racists who believe in the superiority of certain races, it would be worthwhile to examine if we can reach a conception of justice and notion of equality that takes into account the points mentioned by the author and yet presents us with workable theories of living and co-existing. This latter point is the author’s contention, though he did not develop it fully. This is the concept of co-existence as has been practiced in some regions of the world where nature and humans are thought to be one. As I outlined in the opening paragraphs, articles like these are the starting points for further debate about whether we have reached a stage in our evolution when we begin to consider all life in this planet as having the same characteristics. The modern conception of man as separate from nature and the rest of the animal kingdom are giving way to an understanding of our place as members of the planet who share the space with other species as well. This all encompassing view certainly has its merits and as Singer points out repeatedly, the conception of humans and animals being equal is certainly an idea whose time has come. In conclusion, as we move into post-modern conceptions of our place in the world, there is going to be a rethink about how we treat the members of other species and whether we have intrinsic rights to dominate them and subjugate them. Thinkers like Singer would want us to consider a proper conception of rights that extend to the animals as well. Resorting to theories of superiority of humans since we are endowed with higher mental faculties does not lead us to the conception of fairness and equality that is a hallmark of Singer’s article. As Singer puts it in the article, the purpose of philosophy is to question the basis of assumptions of the age and Singer does it very well. Read More