Peter Singer Argument

1197 Words5 Pages
Section 1 In this section of the paper I will focus on Peter Singer’s argument for the claim that we should radically change our standard practices when it comes to food production involving sentient animals. Backing for this claim comes from his belief that like humans, some non-human animals have similar interests and sentience (PowerPoint). Singer’s definition of sentience is the ability to experience pain and pleasure and it is essential for being able to have interests (PowerPoint). We have like-interests in not suffering and experiencing happiness and joy. Feelings towards death and suffering between humans and animals are parallel. Therefore, those with like interests deserve equal consideration. One thing that Singer makes clear is that equal consideration and equal treatment are not the same things (PowerPoint). Given this argument, humans and non-human animals deserve, not to be treated equally, but yes, to be considered equally. Singer believes that sentient non-human animals deserve equal consideration because, like a human, they have a similar interests (PowerPoint). For example, one cannot treat a dog in the same exact way he treats a baby. As…show more content…
We humans do not know what truly hurts these animals because they aren’t able to voice their opinion on what hurts and what doesn’t. It is hard to understand how painful something is because we, as humans, depend on our ability to express our personal experience; animals, however, are unable to express their experience. Changing our practice for animals based on assumptions of pain sensation is not rational. It cannot be proven that animals feel pain. Pain is subjective relying on understanding how much an animal suffers by either experiencing it first hand as an animal, or by being able to communicate effectively with them; none of which is

More about Peter Singer Argument

Open Document