After reading Peter Singer’s essay called “All Animals Are Equal” it was clear to me that his main point was that we should extend to animals the same equality of consideration that we extend to other human beings. In his essay he introduces few major ideas or points, which he believes are necessary to understand in order to fully follow his idea. I will not go over all of them, but I will focus on the one that I thought was very interesting. First, it was his argument that we should have the same equality of consideration as we have for other human beings because there is the ability, or capacity of beings to experience things like pleasure and pain. Therefore, they should be treated as equal of moral importance. I thought his explanation was interesting, as he gives an example that some human beings in their late stage of dementia are less intelligent than other animals. However, people wont consider those human beings unimportant.
As Singer elaborates on this idea, it may seem that he demands that all of the human beings treat animals in practice equally. Moreover, one may even understand Singer’s in the way that he wants humans to be involve and interested in animals just as we are in other human beings, or at least comparable. However, obviously not all interests are comparable especially if we are comparing animals and human beings. I believe that Singer is able to make a line and distinguish it even though he doesn’t necessarily explains this in more depth. What Singer is saying is that the interests may not be always comparable as we simply cannot put the same weight or treat some of human interests equally to the animal’s ones. They simply are not as important at certain times.
In fact, the righteous of actions is determined by the consequences. That is why he believes that pain and suffering are the main wrongs. Unlike Regan who believes that pain and suffering isn’t the main issue. It is the system that allows us to view animals as resources.
I thought Singer’s essay touched upon an interesting idea. Even though he does not clarify the idea mentioned above I do believe that he knows that we cannot treat animals interests and human beings interests completely equally at all times. As many human beings, I too have a pet at home and I in fact do care about him and treat him often as I would treat human being. I believe that most of the people who do have an animal at home develop very special bond, are able to love the animal, and even consider it as part of the family. The challenge that can occur is when we get in touch with an animal that is completely new to us and we happen to be in a situation that may require some sort of action to help or protect it. This might be the time where Singer’s ideas could experience some sort of trouble. He tells us that pain and suffering is the main wrong yet most of the people won’t help a homeless person who might be in pain. How does he expect humans to feel for animals?
Question: How do we find the need/urgency to help or protect an animal that might need help? Or would that interfere with the idea of treating the ecosystem with all the living organisms as its own community and therefore we shouldn’t participate?
Word Count: 591
Environmental Ethics 