Assignment 2) Working on Understanding: More from Singer's "All Animals Are Equal"

Animal Rights: The Mistreatment of Non-Human Animals by Humans Beings

Peter Singer’s article “All animals are equal” exposes the hypocrisy surrounding the notion of equality. The author invokes a philosophical interest in the divergent concepts concerning human equality and non-human animal equality. Singer argues that non-human animals should be treated with the same respect as humans. The foundational premise for the argument focuses on the nature of animals as equal in terms of scientific evidence and facts. Singer focuses on the role of speciesism in promoting unequal treatment in humans and non-human animals. In essence, humans demand equality among human beings and protest racial discrimination while ignoring the inequality meted on animals. Human being rear animals as food sources and recreational objects, as well as experimentation subjects without considering the suffering and trauma meted on the animals. In other words, human beings value their life and rights more than those of non-human animals due to the conflicting ideologies regarding the essence of equality. Equality is the concept of being equal as opposed to ethical differentiation based on human and non-human animals. Therefore, Singer argues that inequality is a function of speciesism, including the mistreatment of non-human animals through killing for food and experimentation.

Human beings regard themselves as the apex of the animal kingdom and privileged to enjoy different rights compared to animals. Although humans agitate for equal treatment of all races, they take a standard idea regarding the mistreatment of animals- justification of factory farming and animal cruelty. Singer says that “the basic principle of equality…is equality of consideration; and equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights” (Singer 2). In so doing, humans treat animals as different from humans, ignoring the scientific facts on animal suffering and adverse experiences such as slaughtering and factor farming. The arguments lead to the basis of fundamental inequality in which different species view them as privileged due to the established social systems and natural hierarchies. Humans overlook the principle of equal consideration when dealing with animals because of the influence of speciesism. It is immoral and unethical for humans to undertake factory and animal killing due to the suffering they inflict on fellow animals. Despite the prominence of unequal consideration and unethical activities, humans view the interests of animals as lesser than human interests. Besides, humans treat animals “like machines that convert fodder into flesh, and any innovation that results in a higher “conversion ratio” is liable to be adopted” (Singer 5). As such, humans derive an unjustified authority to rear and kill animals for nutritional needs and business goals, amounting to animal mistreatment and inequality of species.

Similarly, humans have used exploited speciesism to mistreat animals in the form of laboratory experiments and scientific subjects. Singer views the animal subjects in experimentation as mistreatment and unequal consideration of the animal rights. Speciesism encourages humans to place themselves at a higher ground in terms of awareness and ability to be self-directing. The fact that non-humans are animals just like human beings does not click with the imposed meaning of speciesism. The fundamental consideration should always be a sense of animal life rather than speciesism. Singer questions the wisdom used to exclude orphaned human infant from participating in lab experiments as infants are unaware of the activities happening to them. Further, Singer asks “If the experimenter is not prepared to use an orphaned human infant, then his readiness to use nonhumans is simple discrimination, since adult apes, cats, mice, and other mammals are more aware of what is happening to them, more self-directing and, so far as we can tell, at least as sensitive to pain, as any human infant” (Singer 6). As a result, humans undertake intentional decision to inflict pain and suffering to animals involved in experimentations even though non-human animals have equal considerations for rights from suffering and pain.

The counterargument to Singer’s argument questions that facts surrounding the nature of animal society and the interactional hierarchy in food chains. While Singer focuses solely on human responsibility towards animal mistreatment and unequal consideration of interests, it is crucial to assess the supremacy ranking among animals (Stammers 18). Power struggle and conflicts in the animal kingdom resulted in a social hierarchy that defines issues of food chains and niche opportunities among animal species. For instance, some animals have seemingly higher privileges than others; lions have authority over gazelles and zebras. Surprisingly, lions do not kill their cubs for nutritional needs or experimentation purposes. Similarly, it is crucial to note that the animals killed by lions are always aware of the expected suffering, hence struggle to avoid being captured as they have self-awareness about the environment (Villanueva 8). Like lions, humans do not use infants in experiments since they view themselves as privileged than other species. In so doing, humans show a “ bias in favor of his species whenever he carries out an experiment on a nonhuman for a purpose that he would not think justified him in using a human being at an equal or lower level of sentience, awareness, ability to be self-directing, etc.” (6). In other words, the mistreatment of animals is a function of speciesism, and killing of animals and using animals in experimentation amounts to discrimination and inequality.

In conclusion, Singer successfully shows that killing animals as food sources and experimentation purposes amount to the mistreatment of animals and speciesism. It is unethical and immoral for humans to practice factory farming and animal cruelty by killing animals for food and experimentation purposes. The fundamental theme of Singer’s article is anima rights advocacy since both human beings and non-human animals have equal considerations for life, suffering, and equality. More so, speciesism is the foundation of inequality since each animal species view themselves as different from other animals, thus entrenching inequality.

Works Cited

Singer, P. (1994). All animals are equal.

Stammers, T. (2018). Peter Singer’s Ethics: A Critical Appraisal.

Villanueva, G. (2018). Against Animal Liberation? Peter Singer and His Critics. Sophia, 57(1), 5-19.