Animal Liberation Essay Sample

Why are we a society that condemns the action of a man against the other but he is silent on the action of a man against the animals? This a question to understand if the issues of the animal right s are to be dealt with accordingly. At a particular moment, I believe that the right of the animals is not specific but rather is connected to human rights. We should ask ourselves how the animals would feel if they are entitled to human rights. The author, addresses the issue in a very clear manner and lays out a utilitarian defense of animal liberation in a clear and remarkable way and make us be certain that animals are equal to a human. The author as an advocate of the animals compares his ways of advocacy to a group that fought to carry liberation for human equality. In the book, he comments on the arguments expressed by the contributors and readers highlighting the weakness and strengths. This reveals his passionate faith that exploitation of animals is the outrage of morals (Singer, 1995). He goes ahead and points out the need to completely changing the attitude to non-humans and cease to be on the lookout for exploitation of other animals as normal and acceptable. The essay seeks to show the author's calls for the liberation movement that demands the expansion of moral horizons so the common practices of exploitation previously regarded to be inevitable, as well as natural, are at the moment seen as unbearable.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Animals and humans are friends provided that there is a limit to their interaction. Peter singer provide evidence that validates my opinion. He said that since animals have the right to live the human should give them space to exploit the situation. However, it is unfortunate the human takes everything for granted and never considers it seriousness until It is too late. An example Is a pain inflicted to the animals in the slaughterhouse, indeed it is a horrific scene and immoral (Singer, 1995). Animals deserve to live in peace as humans. They have a life to live immediately after their conception Singers advocates for elimination of speciesism which is regarded to be a permanent thought in the minds of humans. Speciesism is dividing and treating animals separately because of its usefulness. It should be noted that all animals are equal and unique and no species should be treated badly. Humans should not be the only type of animal on this particular earth to who has set rules they should abide.

Singer thinks that animals should have their rights well considered. He tried to point out how to care for animals, regardless of the type of animal. The only difference between humans and animals is that we must respect each other because we are strangers and live together. Singer talks about animals feeling the same pain as humans. How can we see that we feel pain? But in other reactions, unless he was born without functional pain receptors but kicking the mouse isn't good because it's painful. This is a good point as a human being. We kill good and harmless animals.

Personally, I am trying to understand what Singer means by giving the example of the rock being kicked on the road. He says that it is okay to kick a stone rather than a mouse because the later will feel the pain. to confirm this statement is a personal experience where I killed a bird for fun. It was not a serious issue to me until I saw it squawking and flapping its wings helplessly on the ground before going stiff. The death of the bird made me guilty since I could imagine the pain it had felt (Singer, 1995). Reading singer article, I considered myself too strong for the animal rights and in the process, I inflicted suffering in the bird. This was the point of view I never had before. This mentality of feeling more superior than the other animals is what singers are comparing with the discrimination between human beings. The injustice that the human has shown to the animals is the same injustice being shown to the blacks and the ladies who in reality commands equality because they are equal and are capable of becoming a leader just as the whites and men respectively. Justice requires that the equals should be treated equally. This might change the human views on animals' rights since they are not their equals considering intelligence and capabilities. This gives rise to the argument between factual and moral equality. morality should exist since humans have humanity (Singer, 1995).

Research on the article by Bentham gave me an insight into the importance of serving justices to the animals. He argues that there shall come a day when all the animals shall acquire all the rights they could not have in the hands of tyranny. These are the rights they deserve but were withheld. For instance, countries like France have discovered that the color of the skin cannot determine how to treat a fellow human being. It may also be discovered one day that the number of legs, the physical appearance of animal does not give grounds for dividing and abandoning of these creatures to immoral abuse (Singer, 1995). The human beings should base their judgment of animals on the faculty of reason. The question should not be "can they talk?" but rather "do they feel the pain". spiciest biases are just as bad as racist biased and it is unjustifiable. Normally we believe that the scientist does not have general rights to perform the painful experiment to fellow human beings without their consent. This does not happen without consideration of the restriction. Hence, the use of animals for the lethal experiment should not be allowed either because they lack the intelligence to give consent to such operations on them.

Singer agrees with Bentham pertinent question not "Can animals talk"? but "Can they suffer?" (Singer, 1995) Singer dismisses the myth that since the animals lack the ability to speak it lack the ability to feel. The author expresses his rage at the account of animal experimentation and provides graphic examples concerning the issues. Singer concludes by asking the readers if they think that such purely moral demand could ever succeed. He recognizes the challenges in achieving this goal and insist on the use of legal means or military strength to defend the liberation. The author is not sure whether speciesism will ever be defeated given that Nazism and racism are yet to be eradicated. The pessimistic is that human is not altruistic being in nature. Altruism is the only requirement if the animal liberation movement is to succeed (Singer, 1995).

In conclusion, as human involve themselves development activities which might involve the exploitation of natural resources. This includes deforestation which directly the ecosystem of the living organism. They should always understand that animals should be respected and at least the preservation of the habitat should be considered. People do not want to see the dark side of some activities they get involved in (Singer, 1995). They have forgotten that the information is the weapon they need, shows with an extremely powerful message are being made to depict the cruelty of man to the animals. If a human being is keen on the message, they should understand that life is valuable and every moment should be cherished before it is too late. Perhaps, a human being should consider animals life valuable too. It is their role to ensure that their habitat is well sustained and free from free from any kind of invasion. This goes a long way from the domesticated animals to the wild animal. For instance, domesticated animals especially, the pets should not be abused instead they should be given proper health care and medication.

Work cited

Singer, Peter. Animal liberation. Random House, 1995.