4707688
PHI-2600
Paper #2
Singer on “Speciesism” (3) Utilitarian philosopher, Peter Singer, is considered to be one of the world’s most influential people in the animal rights movement. His book Animal Liberation (1975) is undoubtedly the most important and influential book ever written on the subject of animal rights. Singer says that speciesism is a human failing. “Speciesism” is a term coined by Richard Ryder: British writer, psychologist, and animal rights advocate, can be defined as an unjustified bias that favors one’s own species over every other. The term speciesism basically means that we should require equal consideration of all animal happiness. Singer holds that “we would be on shaky grounds if we were to demand …show more content…
However, I had never heard of Singer until a few weeks ago when we learned about him in class. I think he is the one of most important philosophers that has ever existed because his work is relevant to all of the problems humanity is facing today, and he provides the solutions to these problems. Initially, he raises the question if eating meat is an ethical issue, and it’s only relatively recently that we’ve started to philosophize about what we eat. I agree with Singer that what we eat should be an ethical issue. The traditional view of animals from the some of the most famous and influential philosophers of all time; Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Kant, are completely different to Singer’s beliefs. “Plants exist for the sake of animals and the brute beasts for the sake of man…”-Aristotle, Politics. “It matters not how man behaves to animals because God has subjected all things to man’s power.” -Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica. “So far as animals are concerned, we have no direct duties. Animals are not self-conscious, and are there merely as a means to an end. That end is man.”-Immanuel Kant, Lectures on Ethics. These theories are very dated and are not relatable to todays society because there was so scientific evidence of (animal) consciousness. …show more content…
Thanks to Charles Darwin, we understand our shared evolutionary history with animals. We know that animals can feel pain, suffering, and also happiness. However, we don’t yet if all animals can feel pain, such as: crustaceans, clams, oysters, other invertebrates, etc. Singer understands that animals are sentient beings, but, not all animals are conscious beings. Most animals; except some higher primates, octopi, and whales, do not have “consciousness” so they are not aware of their own existence. Consciousness is a tricky term to define since it’s a pretty ambiguous idea. But, in contemporary philosophy the meaning of consciousness is generally understood as the quality of awareness, sentience, subjectivity, and having the ability to manage the control system of the mind. Singer argues that if animal or human does not have consciousness, then it is morally acceptable to terminate the creature because they are not even aware that they are alive, nor are they aware that they will die. I think that Singer would feel that eating an animal that you had hunted and killed would not be morally unethical if you were starving