Peter Singer on why we shouldn’t eat animals Dec 7th, 2016

A video! https://youtu.be/3HAMk_ZYO7g

Singer uses multiple arguments to justify his position First, he notes that while “animal liberation” may sound strange and radical, so did the arguments put forth by feminists insisting upon equal rights for women, when women were considered secondary citizens. He argues by analogy here—linking our attitudes toward animal rights to those of attitudes towards women’s rights historically.

The argument from marginal cases This is an argument against “speciesism”. People might argue that human beings are more rational and sophisticated than animals—and thus inherently superior. But Singer asks, where do we draw the line? Wherever we draw the line between human and non-human in terms of capacities, we will inevitably be excluding some things from the category of ‘human’ (for example, babies, and the severely disabled) or including some things in the category of ‘human’ that we hadn’t originally thought (for example, dolphins or monkeys, because of their intelligence).

His main argument, though, is about suffering Singer uses a utilitarian argument to justify his position on animal rights. He argues extensively that there is ample evidence suggesting that animals of all kinds experience suffering. And, if this is true, on utilitarianism, we ought to reduce the amount of suffering and increase the happiness for the greatest number (that’s what it’s all about).

But utilitarianism is for people! You might argue that utilitarianism only works for people. But then Singer can come back and ask, “what’s so special about people?” As we saw in the video, it is extremely difficult to justify humans as having some sort of ‘special status’.

What do we think?