Singers Argument On Equality

Last Name 1

First and Last Name

Professor

Class

August 16, 2019

Singer’s Argument on Equality.

The equality principle is a moral, philosophical and legal argument which states that all

the human beings are equal and that there should be standards developed to ensure that all the

human beings are treated in an equitable and fair manner under the measures that have been

designed. In the equality principle produced by Singer, he states that all the animals need to be

treated equally and reasonably, criteria developed just like those that govern the way the human

beings are treated. The doctrine that is generated by Singer seeks to find answers to the following

questions; How are people considered to be equal? How should people be treated uniformly

under the set standards and laws to govern equality and fairness? Peter Singer holds an

uncompromising philosophical view on utilitarianism; he is among the first people who

advocated for the rights and the welfare of the animals (Singer 4). In the thesis of his argument,

he stated that as human beings, there is need to ensure that the animals and other objects that are

not humans need to be treated in a similar way by humans as they treat other human beings.

According to this argument, it can be seen that human beings use the moral criterion of

belonging to the Homo Sapiens as the way to treat people importantly. However, using this

criterion, membership to the Homo Sapiens, as a criterion for moral importance is arbitrary.

Different approaches need to be developed, such as the capacity of being able to feel pain and

pleasure, to help human beings apply the moral of importance. By using such sentience as a way

of implementing the moral importance, it means that the other creatures with sentient characters

Last Name 2

will be treated equally. The animals do not need to be human beings to be treated with

seriousness. This means that human beings have to extend the same treatment they give to other

human people to the creatures. In this case, animals are not typical sentient creatures as human

beings, but they can display the sentient features. Therefore, as human beings, we need to extend

the treatment given to other human beings to animals and also the considerations of equality

similar to those extended to other human beings.

Human beings treat other human beings differently when compared to the way they treat

other creatures. The only reason that makes human beings treat the creatures differently is that

they do not belong to the species of the Homo Sapiens. Humans apply the criterion of moral

importance based on the membership of a species. Even if this is the case, it should be noted that

even members of the Homo Sapiens species have differences. According to Singer, human

beings are different; they come in different sizes and shapes. Members of the Homo Sapiens

species, who are humans also come with different intellectual abilities, differing moral

capabilities, different senses of feeling and sensitivity to the needs of other individuals, different

useful communication abilities and also different abilities to feel any form of pain or pleasure.

This means that human beings are not as similar or equal to apply the principle equality. Human

beings are different; they possess characteristics that are similar to those that are owned by other

animals. However, the only attributes that human beings have which other animals do not have

are the membership of the Homo Sapiens species (Singer 33). We do not need to base our

argument of moral importance based on the association of a particular species. If it is said that

human beings are morally essential and that human beings are the only creatures that should be

treated with moral importance, it means that the basis of this argument is based on the

membership to a particular species.

Last Name 3

According to Singer, applying the principle of moral importance to members of a

particular species, in this case, human beings, is simply arbitrary. There is no relevant difference

between the characteristics that are displayed by human beings and those that are displayed by

other animals. There is no rationale of thinking that those who belong to a particular group,

which does not have any significant difference to those who belong to other groups have any

form of greater consideration. It can be noted that human beings use the criterion of species

membership to apply moral importance. However, human beings are not equal, and in some

cases, even the members of the same are not treated in the same way. For instance, through

racism, it can be noted that even members of the Homo Sapiens species are not treated similarly.

This means that using the criterion of species membership to apply moral importance does not

work efficiently.

Through membership, different species are thought to have different characteristics that

are specific to the particular species. For instance, human beings belong to the Homo Sapiens

species. In this species though human beings are said to have same characteristics as members of

the Homo Sapiens species, they still have some characters that present the difference between

them. For instance, human beings belong to different races, they have different cultural

backgrounds and there are also other criteria that can be used to get the difference between

members of the Homo Sapiens species. This means that by using membership to a particular

species as a criterion to treat organisms equally or fairly is not an efficient criterion. Judging

from the current events that take place in the world, it can be noted that even members of the

Homo Sapiens species are not treated equally or fairly. Singer argues that a different criterion has

to be developed.

Last Name 4

Since membership to a particular criterion does not seem to offer the criterion for

applying the principle of equality, Singer proposes the criterion of Sentience. This is the capacity

to feel pain and pleasure. In his argument, he presents an example showing that trying to apply

other criteria as a basis of moral importance; human beings will end up finding ways to exclude

others whom they feel should not be treated with similar equality. For instance, he states that

human beings could view animals as not important because they do not have similar intelligence

levels as that of human beings. However, it can be noted that in some cases, human beings can

be less intelligent when compared to animals. People who are suffering from dementia are

sometimes said to be less capable when compared to animals. However, this does not make them

unimportant as human beings. This means that using intelligence as a criterion for moral

importance is not plausible.

In the second argument that is presented by Singer to support the criterion of sentience is

the virtue of being sentient. He states that its only through the virtue of sentience that anything

can be said to have interests. All animals and human beings have the virtue of sentience, and it is

because of this inclusivity that has made the criterion of sentience to be different from the other

standards that have been developed for moral importance and the principle of equality. Singer

argues that before we speak of interests in any meaningful way, there is need to ensure that the

capacity to feel pleasure, this means enjoying and suffering has to be satisfied. In this argument,

Singer tries to show that offering moral considerations to anything that does not have sentience,

the ability to feel any suffering or pleasure is of no use. However, there is also a contrary

argument that is developed against this criterion. For instance, people who are in an irreversible

coma could have lost their sentience features, and this criterion could have locked them out of

being treated in an equal manner as the other animals and human beings. Even though he states

Last Name 5

that this contrary argument on the exclusion of some human beings is not problematic, he has to

find a way to deal with the elimination because his criticism of other criteria is based on the

exclusion that is presented by the requirements.

By using the criterion of sentience as a way of efficiently applying moral importance

means that as human beings we need to extend the treatment that we give to other human beings

to creatures that have sentient features. This is the basis of the principle of equality. Human

beings exhibit typical sentient characteristics while animals also show conscious features. In this

argument, Singer does not mean that we treat animals and human beings in a similar way, he

states that we need to offer the similar moral considerations to animals such as that we provide to

human beings (Singer 5). This means that the factors that are offered to human beings need to be

similar to those that are offered to animals. Animals, just like the human beings have interests

and it is because of this reason that they need to be treated in a way that is similar to human

beings. Considerations have to be shown towards the interests of animals. This does not mean

that human beings should treat animals as they treat other human beings, they only need to show

them similar moral considerations and interests.

Even though animals cannot be treated the same way as human beings are treated, there is

need for the interests of the animals to be taken into considerations when they are being treated.

Animals, according to the argument that is presented by Singer are sensitive creatures. This

means that they have emotions and the conscious and the actions that are done by human beings

to animals hurt them in different ways. Singer argues that the considerations human beings make

before they do actions to other human beings should be applied in the same manner to actions

that are done to animals.

Last Name 6

Works Cited

Singer, Peter. "All animals are equal." Animal Rights. Routledge, 2017. 3-16.

Singer, Peter. "Why speciesism is wrong: A response to Kagan." Journal of Applied

Philosophy 33.1 (2016): 31-35.

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Paper type

Deadline

Page count

550 words

Total price: $ 15.00

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Ian McGregor

UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Shannon Williams

Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."

Singers Argument on Equality

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

Ian McGregor

Shannon Williams