Truth behind Equality Essay Example for Free

Truth behind Equality Essay Peter Singer is an Australian Philosopher and a utilitarianism who actively advocates the animal rights and equality between species. He presented his arguments regarding his convictions on his articles such as â€Å"All Animals are Equal†, â€Å"Famine, Affluence and Morality† and â€Å"Humans are Sentient Too. † These articles, though have different points, were interrelated, and in one point, connected to each other. These articles simply advocated animal ethics and equality. In his article, â€Å"Famine, Affluence and Morality†, Singer presented his notions regarding morality in relevance to famine and affluence. His first notion in his article was that death caused by scarcity of basic necessities in life such as food, shelter and medicine was bad. Singer used the situation in Bengal on 1971 as an example, wherein poverty, starvation and civil war resulted to suffering and death of people of East Bengal. In his second notion, he suggested that if we were able to prevent such bad things to happen then we were required to do everything we could do to stop that without the expense of doing anything comparably bad. He also believed that affluence countries such as Great Britain and Australia, who had all the capabilities to provide help, should help first the people of Bengal, regardless of how it is from them, instead of giving attentions to less significant things. Furthermore, he believed that it was the government’s responsibilities to provide help so as the individuals. This thought made up his third notion. In his fourth notion, he believed that those who could provide aid should give maximally since not all people were able to contribute. Moreover, he suggested that people should change their outlook regarding charity. It was in our moral norm that charity was not mandatory- it is alright if you do have something to offer but it is also alright if you do not have. However, Singer suggested that it was against the moral norm not to give. Singer, made people blameworthy by this thought. Singer might get his views regarding his moral concept on Marxism wherein individuals were concerned on developing the human race. However, we are living in the real world where humans are too greedy and self-centered to give and to think of others. Moreover, on the economic point of view, it is not economically practical to accept the ideas of Singer since providing help to other countries is just a temporary solution in the case of East Bengal. In conclusion to Singer’s article â€Å"Famine, Affluence and Morality†, it is everyone’s moral obligation to give assistance to someone who is badly in need or in the near death. He believed that it was worth sacrificing the things that are less significant than the life of people. In this case, Singer’s claim with regard to his first article is related to his other article entitled â€Å"All Animals are Equal†. In this article, he first introduced the non-dying issue concerning sexism. He mentioned that all humans were not equal in any aspect, but we still believe that men and women were just morally similar and women deserved to be recognized as men did. Women deserved to have equality with men. In this case, since men and women were just part of the same species, Singer claimed that it was also possible to extend the same recognition to other species- the ones we called animals. Singer also pointed out the case of racism, which was also an undying issue in almost all parts of the world. Whites were claiming that they were superior to blacks; however we all know that it was not true. Some of the blacks were superior to whites and had some capacities that whites do not have. A person’s color was not a justifiable basis to know his abilities. It was not right to discriminate other people just because he was black and as a human being he deserved the same treatments and rights just like the other people. However, it was also undeniably right that humans and animals had so many differences and these differences might lead to different rights and considerations. Singer believed that these differences were not an excuse not to give animals the rights that they deserved. Humankind must realize that equality among humans was not just a factual possibility but also a moral ideal. Singer also suggested that the ideal of equality among humans was all about on how we ought to treat humans. Moral equality was highly dependent on the nature of the individuals, either human or non-human. Considering all those aspects with regard to moral ideals, various views on speciesism had come up to Singer. He described speciesism as an act or attitude which favors the interest of ones own species to take priority over the other species. It was not the physical and mental aspects of animals that were in question with regard of equality, but it was their emotional aspect that was taken into consideration. Humans let the animals to suffer just to satisfy our needs, though we definitely knew that there were other means of satisfying our nutritional requirements. As human beings, we all knew that we were guilty of doing such things. Singer noted in his article that humans were all speciesists and we were all morally wrong for being such since humans allowed the sufferings of other species to happen in our own hands. Singer also pointed out that our society allowed rearing and killing of sentient animals just to supply the needs of people for meats. Singer noted that the act of rearing and killing sentient animals was an obvious evidence of giving other species suffering though we knew that we could stop that to happen thus making us tolerate something bad to happen and at the same time making us morally wrong. Singer suggested that it was our moral obligation to stop practicing this method since it only catered satisfaction to our stomach and craving to eat meat. Likewise, Singer suggested that we should stop killing other species since they have feelings too- they also get hurt and feel pain and enjoy the pleasure of life. He also noted that it would cater no good to us since eating too much meat was bad for our health and it was the otherwise if we eat less or no meat at all. Moreover, he noted that it was not environmentally sound and inefficient to continuously raise animals for meat production since it was a very wasteful process. Singer imparted in his article that it was just equally immoral to perform experiments on non-humans and to eat their species. Singer did not find any difference between the two aside from the fact that there would be more significant outcome that could get in experimenting animals. Experiments on animals might result to additional understanding and knowledge as well as cures to diseases. However, Singer did not take it as an excuse and it was not justifiable to continue conducting experiments on animals. He noted that these experiments were just repetition and validation of previous experiments. Singer believed that people behind these experiments on animals were just doing the experiments for their own good and nothing else. However, Singer pointed out that if we were conducting experiments on animals, why we were not doing it also on humans. Experiments conducted only on animals were just simply discriminating their species since they could feel pain as any human. Animals should earn the same respect as we, humans, earn. Another form of speciesism aside from eating animal flesh and experimenting animal bodies for the advancement of science was determined by Singer as speciesism in modern philosophy. Singer noted that philosophy ought to present inquiries on the things that most people took for granted. However, philosophers at this age failed to query about the moral rights of sentient animals. Most philosophers presented the differences between human being and animals making it impossible to raise equality between the two species. They also presented equality in terms of human equality, and as the term suggested, non-humans though considered sentient, were disregarded when they mentioned or talked about equality. Singer assumed that the philosophers were discriminating the animals, since they did not exert any effort in bringing out the issue regarding equality between species. The other essay of Singer entitled â€Å"Human are Sentient Too†, also tackled the privilege of animals as a living creature to receive the consideration and rights that they ought to have. Singer mentioned again the term â€Å"speciesism† in this essay and claimed for the next time that all species were equal. He believed that the science world, especially the animal research was being unethical to the sentient animals. Singer noted that these researchers believed that animals were inferior to us only served as a tool that they could use to conduct researches and experimentation for the advancement of science. However, the animal liberation movement, especially Singer, did not accept their belief and considered them as immoral for letting the sentient animals to suffer and feel pain. Moreover, he believed that these researchers were violating the foundation of their knowledge and belief, The Theory of Evolution. The said theory entailed that we all existed in the planet due to unplanned evolution and all organisms existed were just equal; hence humans were not supposed to dominate the world. Considering the principle on the work of Jeremy Bentham, Singer came to think that it was possible to conduct experiments on animals and at the same time not causing them any pain or suffering. However, the science world still believed that we, humans, were superior and we were allowed of dominion over other species. And as a result, animal liberation movements were actively and continuously conducting demonstrations to show the society the inequality that they refused to see. However, Singer believed that the government and the science world, specifically the research institution were more responsible in making changes on the way the researches conduct experiments- researches and experiments without making violence on non-humans and preventing them to suffer and feel pain. In relation to the experiments being conduced on animals, there is another kind of technology that researchers invented in the mid-1970s that does not only involve plant species but also animal species. The new technology involves manipulating the genetic material of a species to modify the trait of that species and for it to have the desired trait. Researchers believed that modifying the trait of a certain species is the solution to some of the world’s problem such as starvation due to insufficient food supply, untreatable diseases and expensive medicines. The supporters of genetic engineering claimed that it is just like breeding a certain species. They also claimed that it is not unethical since nature itself did it through evolution. Evidence to the benefits of genetic engineering to our lives has long been reported. Genetically modified organisms are reported to solve the problems on various fields such as in medicine, agriculture, humanity and ecology. Genetic engineering has made dramatic progress on the said fields. Conversely, there are various groups that object genetic engineering. Religious critics, for an instance, believed that genetic engineering is against the statute and will of God. Moreover, they believed that life is so sacred that humans do not have the right to alter what the creator has given us. Other groups who object modifying the genetic code of species claimed that it is the dignity of the species to be modified that is at stake. It is not the right of anyone to violate the dignity not only of human kind but also of other life-forms. Meanwhile, critics of genetic engineering claim that it is unsafe and unethical to produce genetically modified crops since it may threaten the environment and the safety of human kind. Altering the genetic mode of organisms may lead to alteration of the balance in nature and may sequentially result to more serious problem. The world of science has not yet discovered the harmful effects of genetically modified organism hence it is too risky to depend so much on genetic engineering and deal ourselves with these â€Å"manufactured† organisms. When genetically modified organisms are released to the environment and in turn proven unsafe it will be impossible to recall these â€Å"manufactured† organisms. The society may allow the release of these organisms until we are guaranteed that it is safe and may not bring any hazard on our environment and our own health. Considering all the ideas and views of Singer on animal rights and equality and the facts regarding genetic engineering, though some are considerably absurd, it can be said that it is morally wrong to genetically modify non-humans or what we commonly call animals. It is beyond our ethical belief to alter what the creator has given us. Other species such as plant and animal also have sentience, capacities, self-consciousness and value. Sentient animals are not made for the sake of humanity; they exist in the planet for their own purpose- to live and enjoy the pleasure of life. Thus, humans are not licensed to lead the world and shall not bear in our minds that we are superior to the other life-forms. Humans are supposed to respect the existence of other species and give the consideration that these species shall earn from us otherwise; we do not deserve the rights and consideration that we are earning today. Humans enjoy the pleasure of life in this world and other life-forms might as well experience that pleasure of life. Humans, though given much more of the capabilities and knowledge that the other species failed to have, do not have sufficient right to dominate the world and do whatever they want to do to the other life-forms. As humans, given the opportunity to have higher faculty and self-consciousness, we are committed to take good care and preserve the world, as much as we could, as well as the other life-forms living in it. It is not that difficult for us to give the other life-forms the equality that we refuse to give them. All we need to do is to open eyes so we could have a clear outlook on the present situation of the sentient animals in our society today. In turn, we will realize and learn that their real role in this planet is not only to provide us sufficient nutritional requirements and a â€Å"tool† for research and but also to live and earn the respect and right that they have failed to earn from the very beginning. References Singer, P. 1972. Famine, Affluence, and Morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1, 229-243. Singer, P. 2000. All Animals Are Equal. Contemporary Moral Problems, 490-499. Singer, P. 2004, â€Å"Humans Are Sentient Too,† The Guardian.