Animal Equality

By: Alex Bennett
Text Type: Theory
Date: 11/28/2021

Equality is often debated during the study of philosophical issues. Philosopher Peter Singer presents an argument on the principle of equality. In this argument he makes the claim that animals, both human and non-human, deserve equal consideration. In his argument he introduces the idea of equality in regard to human interactions, with consideration for issues of ability, race, and gender. He makes it clear that he does not argue for equal rights or equal treatment of animals. He recognizes the clear differences between a man and women in comparison to a man and animal. Singer uses the word “consideration” in his claim because that is where he desires equality, when we consider another animal. This argument outlines the issues of animal inequality and I will attempt to break down his statements for better understanding. The claim that animals, both human and non-human, deserve equal consideration is supported by three premises. First being that all species have interests. Second, that speciesism is wrong. Third being the principle of equality. Singer states that all species have interests. Interests are one's capacity for suffering or enjoyment. To understand this argument we must understand these two terms. Suffering can be understood as undergoing pain or hardship. It is the absence of enjoyment. Enjoyment can also be understood as pleasure, pleasure being happiness or satisfaction. This point is important as it is a ground for the rest of the argument. If non-human animals did not have interests there would be nothing to consider. Additionally he addresses the fact that we do not have the means to know the manner in which animals suffer. Despite this he argues that there is no definitive reason to value the suffering of one over another. Language is not needed to recognize the pain of another. To conclude this premise, Singer makes this statement of animals having interests to explain that there is something to be considered. These interests will be important in developing the rest of his argument.
Speciesism favors humans over non-humans. Speciesism can be defined as prejudice that is in favor of the interests of one species over another. Prejudice can be defined as a bias that is established and acted upon. It is, Singer argues, a form of discrimination. Singer does not define discrimination as the superiority of a species, rather a lack of consideration of the interests of a species. This argument does not extend to things that can not feel enjoyment and suffering. He mentions that there are things we have determined are inherently wrong. Examples of this are racism, sexism, and ableism. He states that when we attribute superiority to factual differences we go against morals. To justify his claims here he introduces factual equality. This idea is essentially the measurement of equality. That is to say that one obtains equality on factual status, whether that is gender, ability, and for sake of this argument, species. Singer claims that the idea of factual equality is inherently ableist. If factual differences are in fact immoral on the grounds of unequal human consideration, then it must be disregarded as a counterpoint to his claim. The premise that speciesism is wrong contributes to the idea that animals deserve equal consideration, anything else would be a form of discrimination. Lastly there is the point of morality. Namely the principle of equality and its relationship to human morals. To reiterate, Singer argues that interests should be weighed equally. An example of this can be a human's interest to live would be weighed equally to a dog's interest to live. This equal consideration, he believes, is our moral responsibility. There are two types of equality discussed in his argument. Moral equality and factual equality. Moral equality is not a fact, but is something that we “ought to do”. That being said, it is a way in which we should act, not on the basis of facts but on the basis of suffering. This relates back to his argument of interests, because all creatures suffer, we “ought to” consider them. Morality or lack thereof, Singer emphasizes, can not be justified. This is because suffering is considered to be inherently bad, if this is true then inflicting suffering is bad. Therefore it is not moral to inflict suffering on any species, human or other.
To fully develop this argument I will connect these previously mentioned ideas. Singer makes the claim that animals, both human and non-human, deserve equal consideration. This is because animals can suffer, they have an interest in not suffering. In addition to this it is a form of discrimination to not consider these interests. This discrimination is called specisism. Speciesism is wrong because it is a way in which we assign value in the factual status of an individual. Morally we should want to reduce suffering, as suffering is bad. The principle of equality extends to non-human animals because of these premises. This concludes Singer's argument. I truly believe that this argument is well thought out, nothing it proposes is inherently unrealistic or unachievable. While it could be argued that his argument is not realistic because of the nature of animals, especially on the grounds of size, how easily it would be to crush a bug rather than a human. I believe that it is ignorant to reduce his argument to bugs. On a grand scale non-human animals should not have to endure any more suffering than what occurs naturally. Despite this I still find issues with this area of the argument. Natural suffering that is.
While I understand the moral obligation to reduce suffering I feel as though Singer’s argument ignores the manner in which animals regard one another. I feel as though this moral obligation he speaks of is a burden that we have created and consequently suffer from. For example a lion in the wild spares no mercy to the gazelle it slays, why then are we as humans obligated to do so. Animals operate in a manner that is very different from our own, it is negligent of Singer to not recognize that. When we treat animals with equal consideration, they will not know to return the same to us. They inflict suffering upon one another naturally. I am not attempting to state that it is not “fair” that they get to kill and we do not. I simply aim to protect my interests in the same way they do. To further this point, speciesism is inflicted between all other animals, why are we as humans to opt out of this. A mother bird will protect her hatchlings, it is only reasonable for me as a human to protect and value the lives of my fellow humans.
To refute this argument I reason that Singer would argue that it is our moral responsibility to prevent overall suffering. He would argue that our consciousness places us in a position to consider the position of others. However, I would argue that morality extends to those who can understand it and possibly reciprocate it. Singer can state that this viewpoint is ableist, and without regard to humans who cannot process such concepts. To this I would agree, it is ableist, however that does not make it not true. We should not hold the same considerations for those who are clearly different. Not to say that we are morally obligated to kill and mistreat animals and the disabled. All I argue is that naturally not everything can be considered equally, everything should be considered I argue, just not on the same grounds. This equal consideration makes us vulnerable to the lack of morality that is found in non-human animals. This means that when we show sympathy to animals incapable of returning we are damaging our own interests. If they care for themselves we should respond by doing the same, it is how nature functions. I recognize that these arguments come from different viewpoints, however both, I think Singer would agree, should be considered equally.