In this paper I will explore Singer’s claim that our practice of farming non-human animals for human consumption involves systematic moral wrongdoing and that such attitude towards the creatures of the same species as humans is highly immoral because it is close to severe racism and sexism and can be called “speciesism”. First of all, I will elaborate on Singer’s vision of the exploitation of animals by humans and explain his interpretation of it.
I will also focus on the concept of speciesism and the meaning Singer included into it. I will support Singer’s point of view stating that technically humans belong to the category of animals, which makes their exploitation of non-human animals for their own use, safety, prosperity and pleasure cruel, selfish and immoral. I will also explore the notion and speciesism and how the examples of racism and sexism can be found within this phenomenon. Finally, I will mention the most common responses to my arguments and offer critical discussion of them.
According to Singer, humans constantly participate in acts of moral wrongdoing directed at non-human animals. The examples of such acts are farming and breeding animals for food or for sale (in case of cats and dogs of expensive and rare breeds), testing drugs and medications on animals of various kinds such as rats, rabbits, dogs, pigs and monkeys, exploiting animals heavily for hard physical labor and entertainment. As stated in Singer’s book called “Animal Liberation” similar exploitation of humans can be found in our history (33).
The acts of such exploitation are called genocide, apartheid or slavery and they are widely judged in the human society all around the world. Singler explores the concept of utilitarianism, which means doing good for as many persons as possible, and is widely applied in the human society. The author then studies attitudes practiced by humans towards non-human animals, and notices that humans see non-human animals as resources and utilize these resources to gain personal goods. Such consumerist attitude excludes the moral view on the issue, for example, the idea that the animals suffer great pain while being exploited.
Singer calls this social happening “speciesism”, which means that humans treat other creatures of the same species with cruelty and commit moral crimes of the kinds that are strictly forbidden within human society such as racism and sexism. The connection between speciesism, racism and sexism resides on the segregationist behaviors towards equals. Singer is aware that many humans would respond to his argument listing various aspects of differences between humans and non-human animals emphasizing the superiority of people mainly based on their higher intellect level.
In response, the author states that within human society levels of intellect are not considered a valid reason to discriminate. If it was so, then people with lower intelligence levels would be turned into slaves of those who are intellectually superior. Singer concludes that even though the non-human animals cannot resolve mathematical problems and do not possess the gift of reason, they can feel pain and pleasure just like we do, which makes them our equals in this aspect. As a result, consumerist attitude causing a lot of sufferings and pain to the non-human animals is highly unethical and severely immoral.
I agree with Singer’s approach. Practically, humans are considered to be one of the animal species. Without a doubt, the development of human mind considering reason, logic, the use of tools and intelligence is higher. Yet, the discussed aspect of moral behavior does not consider the intellectual superiority of species, but their capacity of feeling pain and experiencing physical sufferings. The ability of non-human animals of all kinds to suffer is a fact today.
One does not need to be a scientist to learn it. Everyone knows that animals scream when they feel pain, their pupils dilate, their breath and heart beat speeds up, they experience stress, fear, and shock. Possessing this knowledge, humans daily doom thousands of non-human animals to sufferings and pain with the purpose of fulfilling selfish consumerist needs of the human society such as the need for safety and health care, the need for nutrition, the need for entertainment and the need for physical power. This is why monkeys and guinea pigs are locked in research labs, horses and donkeys serve as transportation means, elephants and ponies take tourists for a ride and cows, pigs and chickens are killed for their meat.
Singer’s concept of speciesism can be viewed as a complex happening because racism and sexism can be found within it. For example, humans as the main source of speciesism have a tendency to favor some kinds of non-human animals such as cats and dogs. As a result, they will initiate the acts of speciesism against other non-animal species to please their favorites. For example, fishing may be done for cats. Even the human attitudes towards their favorite pets can be viewed as utilitarian, because the most common choices of pets include the animals capable of developing attachments towards humans, this way providing them with emotional fulfillment.
Favoring some species of non-human animals and neglecting the others is a case of racism. Moreover, in farming, male chickens get eliminated right after birth because they do not have the capacity of producing eggs. The population of farming animals mainly consists of female units as they are considered more useful from the consumerist point of view. This is a clear example of sexism within speciesism. Behaviors of this kind are viewed as cruel and unreasonable within the human society and in reference to human individuals of different races, sexes and physical and mental abilities.
The concept of interracial equality is widely developed, promoted and emphasized in the human society today. Yet, the behaviors of the same discriminative character coming from humans towards the creatures of other species are not perceived or explored as immoral or unethical. Singer’s book called “Animal Liberation” became scandalous because its author pointed out something that has been clear for a long time, but had no definition or name. Singer is one of the first philosophers who openly stated that humans and non-humans are more equal than we are used to imagining.
One of the most common responses to my arguments would be the statement of human superiority over other species of animals. I am going to address this claim noting that the human superiority is based on their level of intelligence only, so, as Sojourner Truth once said “If my cup won’t hold but a pint and yours holds a quart, wouldn’t you be mean not to let me have my little half-measure full?” (What Is Animal Liberation? Excerpts from Philosopher Peter Singer’s Groundbreaking Work, par. 8). Utilizing intellectually inferior species as tools for own well being does not fit the main principle of utilitarianism and should be considered immoral.
Another response to my arguments might be the claim that humans are predators and feeding on other species is what they naturally do. To address this claim, I will note that humans are not officially recognized as predators, as they can practice vegetarian lifestyle and do not require meat to continue living. Besides, the amount of animal meat produced by the contemporary farms is clearly above what is needed and is mainly directed not at supporting the life of humans, but at satisfying their consumerist need for gustatory pleasures. Besides, even if humans were, in fact, predators, this would not explain the tendency to exploit non-human animals as workers or as test objects and use them as tools to fulfill strictly human needs.
Works Cited
Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. New York: Ecco Press, 2001.
What Is Animal Liberation? Excerpts from Philosopher Peter Singer’s Groundbreaking Work. PETA. 2014. Web.