Comparison of Moral Community Conception by Peter Singer and Paul Taylor - Essay Example

Moral Community as developed by Peter Singer and Paul Taylor Introduction Historically, this belief has prevailed in the West that human beings are superior to animals. The basis of such belief is generally based on the assumption that mental superiority of humans gives them the right to believe that animals have been created to serve the humans and hence they can treat animals in the manner they desire. Some philosophers attribute this philosophy to the fact that animals although have cognitive skills they however lack the power of reasoning. There are others who believe that animals lack cognitive skills and they behave as per their instinct. Predominantly, philosophers have embarked on the logic that it is the cognitive skill that decides the moral status of a being. Since human beings possess higher reasoning capability therefore they hold superior moral status. In recent years, the assumption has shifted to believe that animals possess higher reasoning capability and so hold higher moral status than were previously believed (Steiner, preface). Singer’s article (2008) is based on the argument that “animal liberation today is analogous to racial and gender justice in the past” (Singer, 73). Just the way human beings distinguish based on race and gender, similarly animals are believed to deserve differential treatment since they are considered as inferior beings by speciesists. According to Singer, speciesism is defined as the characteristics (unjustifiable identified) endowed on a certain species that induce them to believe themselves as superior beings. Taylor (1981) on the other hand has argued that moral guidance of human beings for embracing the nature must be based first on respect for nature as the vital moral approach, and secondly this approach should be justifiable with all rational agents. According to him it is the inherent goodness of an individual that establishes his moral relation with the other species of nature (Taylor, 139). Liberation movements have become common events in today’s society which demand “an expansion of our moral horizons and an extension or reinterpretation of the basic moral principle of equality” (Singer, 73). Liberalization is demanded by any group of people who are subjected to discrimination for reasons like color of skin, sexual orientation or gender. The author has stated that to embrace equality in society, it is important that oppressors should take a new perspective of their traditional approaches. Only if they can make “mental switch” then they can comprehend the fact that they maintain their so called superior social status by taking advantage of the minorities. In his article, Singer has advocated this understanding of one’s attitude towards the non-human species like the animals. In the past, equal rights for women were considered in the same bracket as animal rights. However, as counterargument it can be stated that right of equality cannot be extended to animals in the same way as it can be extended to women. This is because men and women are similar in many ways like both have a rational mind. Human beings and animals are different in many ways and therefore it is natural that each species will have different rights. Therefore, Singer has explained that principle of equality does not refer to equal rights or equal treatment, but rather equal consideration since it is the nature of a specific group that can decide the kind of treatment the group deserves. When talking about equal rights for all human beings, it needs to be considered that each individual comes with different “moral capacities and intellectual abilities (Singer, 75). This means, demand for equality becomes unjust if it is based on actual equality of all human beings. Singer has a different approach towards the rights to equality. He has developed “life-centered system of environmental ethics” which does not indicate that moral principles include obligations towards the natural ecosystems. This view of the author is different from human-centric perspective of Taylor. According to Singer, human beings are obligated towards animals, plants and other living organisms of this world because of the inherent worth of these other organisms. This view is in sharp contrast with Taylor’s approach that human beings should remain responsible towards other beings out of moral obligations. When a living organism suffers from intense pain and expresses agony, it becomes moral obligation of human beings to alleviate the being from the pain. Irrespective of the characteristic of the concerned being, according to principle of equality the pain of every being must be given equal consideration and therefore it should be assumed that every being has the right to be liberated from suffering. Therefore, if a being does not have the ability to exhibit the feeling of pain, then there remains nothing to be considered which means the beings which lack interests cannot be considered for equal treatment. In case of racism and clash of interests, the majority groups emphasize on the interests of own groups by undermining the interests of the minority groups. Similarly, the inherent rights of animals are violated when human species kill them for selfish reasons. The most important direct cause for killing animals is eating their meat. The justification given by some people that eating meat is essential for extracting protein which is needed for human body does not stand true when it has already been established that there are alternative sources of protein like soybeans and vegetable products. This means the fact that human beings kill animals is because they are meant to kill the animals. For getting meat for meals, people are prepared to confine sentient animals in unhealthy environments for their entire lives. Since such killings serve no other purpose than satisfying the palate of humans, it means people willingly sacrifice the greater interests (right to live) of other species to satisfy own trivial needs. This kind of speciesism can be stopped only if human beings develop the sense of moral obligations towards animals (Singer, 77). In contrast to Singer’s “moral obligation” perspective, Taylor has asserted that human beings have any responsibilities towards animals not because of moral obligations but because of the sake of the other non-human species. Any activities performed by human beings for the protection of the environment like pollution control measures, reducing global warning etc. are because of the fact that these are the only ways “in which we can help make it possible for wide species populations to achieve and maintain a healthy existence in a natural state” (Taylor, 140). Singer has stressed on the fact that the tendency of human beings to consider themselves as superior beings is not based on any rationale and it only serves the human prejudices which favor human species over million others. Every organism is bestowed with inherent worth and Singer has stated that this makes all species the right to hold equal status in this world. The American Indians have been given inferior status by the white men merely because of the fact that they suffer from poverty. For these Native Americans, the norm has been to distribute their accumulated skills and success with the less unfortunate group to carry out their moral obligations in order to keep their minds free from pride and envy (Eastman, 7-8). The simple truth is that the American Indians never held the desire to rise above the white men by emulating the achievements of the latter. This is because “in his own thought he rose superior to them” (Eastman, 10) which means it is their inherent worth that makes them feel themselves of equal status with the white men. Conclusion Both Singer and Taylor have provided their perspectives regarding the principle of equality. While Singer has stressed that the inherent worth makes every being equal in status, Taylor has emphasized on the moral obligations of human beings towards the other non-human species of the world. References Eastman, Charles Alexander. The Soul of the Indian, Start Publishing LLC, 2013 Singer, Peter. “A Utilitarian Defense of Animal Liberation.” 73-82, In Environmental Ethics, eds. Louis Pojman & Paul Pojman. Thomas Wadsworth, 2008 Steiner, Gary. Animals and the Moral Community: Mental Life, Moral Status, and Kinship, Columbia: Columbia Univ. Press, 2013 Taylor, Paul W. “Biocentric Egalitaranism”, Environmental Ethics, Vol.3 (1981) 139-154 Read More