Environmental Ethics

Environmental Ethics
Student
Institutional Affiliation
Course/ Number
Lecturer
Date:
Singer argues out that the liberation for animals is a kind of mindset which should be rethought. It needs a bit of rethinking and reinterpretation of the fundamental principle of equality. He believes in the utmost equality of all animals, human and non-human animals at such. He emphasizes the need to have a mental switch by respecting one’s attitudes and practices towards an enormous group of beings. He vividly compares the rights for women and their liberation and ostensibly equates the same to horses and dogs that need the same consideration. He brings out the misconception that many people hold against non- human animals. They believe such animals are not capable of reasoning and hence the negligence and cruelty directed towards them. He uses the concept of voting where many argue that, for instance, a dog may not be able to vote hence should not have equal rights with humans (Peter, 2)
Though there are drastic differences between animals and human beings, Singer hold the view that these differences should lead to differences in their rights and not lack of rights. To justify this, he compares the situation to the differences between men and women who have different rights. He emphasizes on the fundamental principle of equality that is primarily, equality of consideration (Peter, 4)
Singer believes that applying the principle of utility is paramount in dealing with the situation of animals’ rights. Though this may seem to contrast with vegetarianism, Singer believes that the two influence each other. He refutes the assumption that utilitarianism does not support vegetarianism. He uses ethics as a means of explaining his attitude. The principle of utilitarianism aims at minimizing pain and maximizing pleasure. He says that many non- human animals can experience both pain and pleasure. At such, Singer holds the view that they are such morally significant entities. They have somewhat Singer refers to as “Having Moral Standing”. In this view, therefore, animals are more like humans and unlike rocks for having the sense of touch. He further postulates that the principle of utility is the sole basis of morality and that no other policy can limit the application of the principle of utility or even affect the way it operates. He underscores the fact that the principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration (Peter, 4)
He further emphasizes the fact the principle of utility gives animals a moral standing while at the same time giving their interests equal weight. As the benefit of humans, lies in the consequences of denying animal equal moral status. He believes that as utilitarians, they could do much to revise moral theory in favour of animals, ...