Assignment Question

For your final paper, choose one of the articles you read on your applied ethics topic (animal rights, euthanasia, or global poverty). Explain the author’s position on your topic, then – given what you’ve learned in the course – evaluate the author’s argument. Specific Instructions for Structuring the Paper This paper should be organized as a typical essay with an Introduction and a Conclusion, as well as including Part I and Part II as follows: Part I: Explain the author’s argument in the article that you’ve chosen. In his/her view, what is the correct position to have on the applied ethics issue you chose? What are the reasons that he/she gives in support of his/her view? Part II: Present a potential problem for the author’s position. After presenting a potential objection to the argument, explain whether you think that the author’s position is stronger than the criticism that you presented by doing one of the following. If you agree with the author’s view, explain why the objection is not a problem for his/her view (i.e., respond to that objection on behalf of the author). If you disagree with the author’s view, explain how the objection is problematic for his/her position. Grading I grade based on content, not length. That being said, you should aim for around 3-5 pages. If your paper is too short, you won’t have explained the argument or the objection fully. So, make sure to focus on answering each part of the paper topic. If your paper seems to be a bit long, make sure every word is necessary. You should be able to explain the concepts succinctly as well as clearly.

Answer

Introduction

Applied ethics encompasses a variety of pressing moral issues, and one of the most debated topics within this domain is animal rights. In this paper, I will examine Peter Singer’s argument on animal rights as presented in his influential work “Animal Liberation” (Singer, 1975). I will first outline Singer’s position on this topic, elucidating his arguments in favor of extending moral consideration to non-human animals. Subsequently, I will raise a potential problem with Singer’s position and provide a critical evaluation of his argument.

Explain Peter Singer’s Argument on Animal Rights

Peter Singer’s argument on animal rights is grounded in the principle of equal consideration of interests. He contends that the ethical framework should not be restricted to humans but extended to all sentient beings, irrespective of their species. Singer posits that animals have a capacity to experience pleasure and suffering, much like humans, and, therefore, deserve moral consideration. His central argument is as follows:

Singer argues that the principle of speciesism, analogous to racism or sexism, is morally indefensible. Speciesism is the discrimination or favoritism toward one’s own species without a justifiable reason (Singer, 1975). He asserts that humans have historically regarded themselves as superior to other animals and used this perceived superiority to justify the exploitation and suffering of non-human animals. Singer contends that this hierarchy is arbitrary and unjustifiable.

To address this, Singer introduces the concept of sentience as the criterion for moral consideration. He argues that the capacity to experience suffering and pleasure, rather than species membership, is what truly matters. Singer writes, “The capacity for suffering and enjoying things is a prerequisite for having interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in any meaningful way” (Singer, 1975, p. 4). He further contends that inflicting unnecessary suffering on animals is ethically equivalent to inflicting such suffering on humans and should be morally condemned.

Singer’s argument is a call for the reevaluation of our treatment of animals in various contexts, including factory farming, research, and entertainment, with the aim of reducing their suffering and improving their well-being.

Singer’s argument has been instrumental in shaping contemporary discussions on animal ethics and has ignited significant interest and debate regarding our treatment of animals. His insistence on recognizing the moral worth of animals beyond species boundaries is a foundational element of the modern animal rights movement.