Philosopher Peter Singer argues that animals should be given equal treatment wit

Philosopher Peter Singer argues that animals should be given equal treatment with human beings because they can experience pain and pleasure, they have the capacity to suffer. If you have the capacity to suffer, he says, then you have interests as well. For this reason, he says, the capacity to suffer is the criterion we should use in deciding whether something has rights and should be treated equally with humans.
To speak technically, the capacity to suffer is the rights-giving criterion for anything. If something has the capacity to suffer, then it also has interests and rights, and should be treated equally with human beings.
He illustrates this showing that a rock does not have this capacity to suffer. It feels no pain or pleasure if someone kicks it. It doesn’t care. But a cat or dog does feel pain, it has the capacity to suffer. Therefore cats and dogs have an interest in NOT being kicked and they should be treated equally with human beings.
He argues that if we choose Reason as the rights-giving criterion, it is very convenient for us as humans since it happens to be a characteristic which we have at a greater level than animals. But it is arbitrary, says Singer. We might as well choose skin color or the sex of a person. Singer argues that choosing skin color is racism, and choosing the sex of a person is sexism.
He now adds that if we choose reason as the rights-giving criterion, it is speciesism. It’s a new word he has made up for this. It means to discriminate against other things (animals) just because they are not members of your own species.
Answer the following two questions:
1. Do you agree with Peter Singer when he says animals should be treated equally with humans because they can experience pain or pleasure?
Tell why you do or do not agree with him. (please write about i agree with his point view) (100-150 words)
2. Give your response to the three texts below.
Which points do you find interesting or enlightening or refreshing to you? (50-100 words each, you need to write three)
Text 1:
I agree with him that animals and humans should be treated equally, and that every creature with the will to exist has the right to a life free of pain and suffering. Animals lack the ability to understand and express language, but they are spiritual beings who provide less protection for less capable animals. Animals have done nothing wrong and have no understanding why they are being abused, therefore, if they have the ability to suffer, they should be given the same benefits and protections as humans.
Text 2:
I agree with the philosopher Peter Singer’s point of view of equal treatment, I have always adhered to the idea that all beings are equal and no one is more noble. Our prejudice against other species is precisely because humans pride themselves on being noble and the strongest of all living things. However, animals and humans should be treated equally not just because animals can feel pain, but because we are all creatures on earth, and humans just happen to have self-conscious brains.
Text 3:
I quite agree with the idea that animals should be treated equally. I think it needs to be put in another person’s shoes and not bring in any human perspective or interests. Imagine if there were civilizations that were higher than humans, that used human beings for food, for medical or biological experiments. It also distinguishes people of different races and regions. In this case, would humans consider it unfair? Just because humans are more intelligent than animals and have better communication skills to discriminate between species, I think is ignorant. Every living thing has a purpose and the earth is not just ours.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.