Introduction
People have been raising issues concerning human rights and equality. These rights and equality are mostly based on race, ethnicity and gender. There have been arguments that all human beings are equal, each and every human being has equal rights as the other and he or she is entitled to a happy life free of suffering; especially suffering inflicted by another human being. On top of these, other people have brought in the idea of defending other animals (non-human animals). Arguments have been presented that, non-human animals just like humans, deserve to be treated equally and they have a right to have a life in which there is no infliction.
This paper is going to consider two articles that talk about the issues of equality and the rights of animals. The articles to be considered are “Animals are equal” written by Peter Singer and “Giving animals rights is antihuman” written by Wesley J. Smith. These articles are going to be compared and contrasted. The central idea is that all animals are equal but this equality does not require equal rights but equal consideration.
Comparing and contrasting two articles
In his article “All animals are equal”, Peter Singer presents claims that people are supposed to offer the same respect to non-human animals just the same way they offer respect to fellow humans. He claims that all the animals; be they human or non-human, are equal. He presents the idea of speciesism. According to him; speciesism is defined as “a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of the members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species” (Singer, p. 4). Singer goes ahead to present three claims in regard to speciesism.
One of the claims he presents is that equality is on the basis of equal consideration. The next claim is that equality is not a factual idea but it is rather a moral idea. The last claim that he presents is that the capacity to suffer is a precondition for rights. In overall terms, Singer’s argument is that in the absence of speciesism, there can be no following of inequality.
In making the claim that equality is on the basis of equal consideration clear, he indicates that arguments presented for not making an extension of rights to animals other than human beings are not consistent. Singer notes that there is no requiring of equal rights by equality. He presents an illustration by pointing out that making claims that dogs are not equal to human beings because they have no idea what it means by vote and thus do not have a right to vote doesn’t make one draw a conclusion that they do not deserve equal consideration. This point is made clear by pointing out that men and women will not at all times possess rights that are similar. If it were that men and women would always have similar rights, then it implies that men would have a right to abortion. Such a right to men is just in the same way not coherent as dogs possessing the right to vote.
Another argument presented by Singer in his article relates to the reason why equality isn’t an affirmation of fact but a moral ideal. He presents this argument by going over those claims that are presented by other authors who seek to defend sexism as well as racism and the arguments that are presented in opposition to the equality of all human beings. He carries out this by looking at why sexism and racism are not right but very much wrong. He argues that, regardless of what, all human beings come in he sizes and shapes that are not similar. He points out that “if the demand for equality was based on the actual equality of all human beings, we would have to stop demanding equality” (Singer, p. 4) According to him, equality is independent on the intelligence one has as well the physical strength or other similar features.
Also, Singer considers the idea of suffering. The objective he has is to indicate that the rights are on the basis of the capacity for suffering. He notes that “precisely what our concern or consideration requires us to do may vary according to the characteristics of those affected by what we do” (Singer, p. 4). This is a summary of the points that had earlier on been presented by Singer and directly attacks speciesism. The singer looks at the reasons for having wider differences between those people who are healthy and those that are disabled than the differences between healthy people and particular other animals. The similarities presented by Singer that exist between the non-human animals and the human beings having the acceptance of the earlier features of equality greatly inclines one to conclude that all the animals are equal.
However, on the other hand, Wesley Smith in his article “Giving rights to animals is antihuman” does not agree with the idea that all animals are equal, especially in line with relating human beings and non-human animals. He points out that many people and particularly those who are in the pro-life movement engage in taking for granted the exceptionalism of a human being. He insists that these people are no longer going to be in a position to go on engaging in this. He points out in relation to the position a human holds as compared to non-human animals that “it is our exalted moral status that both bestow special rights upon us and imposes unique solemn moral responsibilities – including the human duty not to abuse animals” (Smith, p. 4).
Smith goes ahead and makes an observation that it is quite unlucky that the liberationists are not very much aware of this point. By not accepting the status of human beings that is one of its own kind, these people carry out the dilution of “the very concept of evil and reduce it to the banal” (Smith, p. 4). He presents a few illustrations of what evil conduct may be and what might not be evil or even wrong. He mentions that holding people as slaves is an evil practice but the practice of rearing animals such as sheep is not even wrong. Engaging in genocide is an evil thing to do but killing large numbers of animals so that people who might be starving can be fed is not a wrong practice. Raping is an evil practice but carrying out artificial insemination on a non-human animal such as a cow is not even a wrong practice.
Smith in his article concludes that what is even more basic, the manner human beings behave towards each other and towards the world is significantly on the basis of the kind of beings the humans see or consider themselves to be. If ever at all human beings come to consider themselves as being just like any other animal out there in the bush, then clearly that is how the human beings would start behaving or acting.
Smith and Singer share the idea that the rights of the animals are not equal among them but there is a need for moral considerations. They agree on the idea that a few animals may be sacrificed (their rights violated) for the benefit of the larger number of people in society. However, they do not agree on the idea that even a few human beings who may be disabled can be sacrificed instead of animals to serve the interests of many.
Conclusion
All animals are equal in a manner that they have to be treated with equal consideration. Humans should treat non-human animals with respect the same way they treat fellow humans. Equality among animals is not on the basis of physical strength, intelligence among other factors but it is on the basis that each and every animal needs to be treated with equal consideration. However, where the interests of the majority have to be protected, this consideration may be adjusted to protect the interests of the majority. However, in an effort to respect what is referred to as “animal rights”, there is a need for human beings to realize the position they hold among the animals in order for them to act in an appropriate manner.
Works Cited
- Singer Peter, “Animals are equal”: In Animal liberation, 2nd Edition. New York: New York Review of Books, 1990.
- Smith, Wesley, J., “Giving animals rights is antihuman”. Current controversies: Rights of animals. Ed. Debra A miller. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009.