All Animals Are Equal Peter Singer Summary

Summary - Thomson - defense of abortion.

All animals are equal peter singer summary. Peter Singers article titled All Animals Are Equal takes an approach on the long standing debate of human versus animal equality. He is associated for fighting for the animal rights equality and justifies his theory by the equality of sufferings both animals and humans can experience. It is somewhat ironic then that Peter Singer uses utilitarianism as the basis for arguing that animals have rights.

Singer defines speciesism as the act of giving biased favors to the members of ones own species acting against the representatives of the other species. Summary - Chapter 3 of philosophy of science. Humans must not experiment on nonhuman animals hereinafter referred to as animals because they should be treated as equals.

Peter Singers theory of animal rights Peter Singer has become well known for his theory of animal rights early in 1970s. Summary - Singer - all animals are equal. Argument for main conclusion 1 Beings have interests just.

Peter Singer in All Animals are Equal points out that people are contradicting themselves when they make the argument that non-human animals do not deserve the same rights as humans just because animals do not have the same intellectual abilities as us. He presents his argument in a modus pones form. The assumption of human superiority leading to the exploitation of animals 3 claims against speciesism.

Singer opens the article by presenting a scholarly parallels between the fight for gender equality banishment of racism and the. Peter Singer All Animals Are Equal Analysis. In the article Singer goes on to say how animals should have the same rights as humans because by not doing so we are practicing speciesism and most humans do.

Liberation movements demand the expansion of our moral horizons. For the reason that animals are capable of feeling pain and pleasure they matter and we should consider them as equals. Because humans and other animals differ this principle of equality would not imply perfect equality of rights.