Philosopher views
SINGER AND HISTORICAL OPPRESSION
Download 5.81 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- THE DEFINITION OF EQUALITY
- CRITERIA FOR EXTENSION OF EQUALITY
SINGER AND HISTORICAL OPPRESSIONSinger uses a comparison of “speciesism” to the historical concepts of racism and sexism. He believes that society has become far too complacent, and thinks that they have gotten rid of the last form of discrimination. Now, instead of classifying those of other races or women as less deserving of rights, we classify members of other species as undeserving. Singer understands that extending rights to animals seems a bit far-fetched. He also reminds us that for a long period of time, liberation movements for minorities and women seemed far-fetched; but that society has since realized its mistake. When Mary Wollstonecraft published her Vindication of the Rights of Women in 1792, it was widely criticized as absurd. 3 The barrier that causes society to not extend rights to animals is their view that these species are fundamentally different. But Singer explains that equality can be extended with attention paid to detail, and again turns to the women’s rights movement as an example. He explains that conceding the differences in beings does not mean they are unworthy of equality. Instead, they merely need different considerations. For example, a woman can claim that she has a right to an abortion; whereas a man cannot physically require an abortion and so does not have this right. Women were given the right to vote because they are capable of rational decision making just like men are. Dogs, however, do not have that same capability and should not be allowed the right to vote. 4 Singer concedes that there exist important differences between animals and people, but that does not mean that the basic principle of extending equality to non-human animals is invalid. THE DEFINITION OF EQUALITYBefore we can explore the ways in which Singer believes equality should be extended, we must first have a clear understanding of how he defines equality. In his All Animals are Equal, Singer offers the following definition: “The basic principle of equality, I shall argue, is equality of consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights.” 5 This helps to further clarify the notion that equality does not mean an extension of the exact same rights. Fundamentally, Singer’s notion of equality is that it is a moral ideal, and not merely an assertion of fact. A difference in ability documented in fact does not justify any difference in the consideration we give them. Equality, according to Singer, is not descriptive of they way beings are; rather, it is a prescription of the way beings should be treated. 6 This consideration is based on two things. The first is the ability of a being to suffer, and the second is if they have interests. If a creature cannot suffer, then they cannot have interests. But if a creature can suffer, and a decision can cause that suffering; their interests must be given equal consideration to human interests or any other animal’s interest. CRITERIA FOR EXTENSION OF EQUALITYCritics of Peter Singer often offer criteria that attempts to include all of humanity and exclude non-human animals. The proposed criterion are ways to determine who is worth of having equality extended to them. Singer, however, points out that all of the proposed criterion exclude some of humanity while including some non-human animals. Singer’s ideas here begin with the notion that not all human beings are the same. Singer notes that, “Humans come in different in different shapes and sizes; they come with differing moral capacities, differing intellectual abilities, differing amounts of benevolent feeling and sensitivity to the needs of others, differing abilities to communicate effectively, and differing capacities to experience pleasure and pain.” 7 These differences make it nearly impossible to create a criteria that encompasses all of humanity. Furthermore, factual equality comes with no guarantee that the abilities and capacities that humans have are distributed evenly throughout the population. Because the notion of basing equality on a fact; like intelligence, moral capacity, strength, or other matters; creates divisions between humanity, a new criteria becomes necessary. The criteria agreed upon by Singer, as noted above, is sentience. That is, the determining factor is the capacity to suffer or experience happiness. Others have proposed differing criterion that Singer responds to. The first idea that Singer deconstructs is the notion that equal consideration should hold until there is a clash between the interests of humans and non-human animals. After noting the similarity this principle holds with the racist and sexist policies of the past, Singer explains that if fails since our interests are constructed to always be in conflict with other species. We eat them, wear them, and use them to do our labor. Perhaps the conflict of interests is not real. Singer notes how much money and resources it requires to raise animals for food, and explains how it is not necessary for a healthy diet. But because we believe our interests are always in conflict, we will never give equal consideration. Thus, a criteria based on equality only in certain circumstances fails. Another proposed criterion to decide upon the extension of equality is intelligence or the capability to reason. Singer is quick to explain the problem with this criterion: it necessarily excludes humans who are infants and those who have mental defects. He poses the hypothetical situation of an experiment that needs testing. His critics often ask, if harming one animal in tests could save thousands, would that be ok? Singer responds with another hypothetical situation: would the experimenter be prepared to conduct the study using a human infant? If he is not, then it is simple discrimination. 8 There are a few other arguments that Singer answers. His critics claim that the reason why infants should be included in the criteria of intelligence and reasoning is because they have the potential to develop those things. This would mean that individuals with mental defects still would not be included. It would also mean that sperm and eggs would also have to garner equal treatment as a full-grown being. Again, critics of Singer argue that those with mental defects should still be extended equality; but cannot articulate why their criteria of intelligence and reasoning apply. The final argument Singer addresses is that humans have an intrinsic dignity. Singer notes that this is couched in many elegant phrasings, such as “the intrinsic dignity of the human individual,” or that “humans are ends in themselves.”9 This dates back to the ideals of the Renaissance and humanists, and runs through Judeo-Christian doctrines. Singer maintains that this idea only holds up when it goes unquestioned and assumed. After all, fellow humans are not eager to disagree with the view that they are members of the highest order. Once we ask the question as to why all humans have this worth we are only taken back to the previous issue. It leaves us searching for the characteristic that all humans possess and other animals don’t that would qualify them for intrinsic dignity. Those who advocate this position, therefore, find themselves in a precarious situation without the ability to distinguish a defining characteristic. Directory: uploads uploads -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 uploads -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers uploads -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016 uploads -> Township of winfield uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program What We Want Now! Download 5.81 Mb. Share with your friends:
|