In "All Animals Are Equal," Peter Singer argues that any being with sentience should be granted equal moral consideration. In this paper, I will reconstruct Singer's argument and explain the premises on how he came to this conclusion. To begin with, Singer defines sentience as the capacity to suffer or experience enjoyment or happiness (Singer 53). Singer states that "if a being is not capable of suffering, or of experiencing enjoyment or happiness, there is nothing to be taken into account... This is why the limit of sentience... is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interests of other" (Singer 50).
Firstly, Singer claims that we should understand the concept of equality as a reason for accepting the conclusion of his argument. What he means by this is that the concept of equality is a moral ideal and not a simple assertion of fact (Singer 52). In other words, when we say that all human beings are equal, we do not assert that they are in fact equal in intelligence, moral capacity, physical strength, or similar matters of fact. Instead, we assert that they deserve equal consideration of interests as a basic moral principle, which will be explained …show more content…
That is to say, for any being that has interests, these interests must be taken as equally morally important with similar interests of another being. However, Singer notes that equal consideration of interests does not imply identical treatment. Instead, Singer argues that the principle of equality is equality of equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and rights (Singer 50). Extending to nonhuman animals the same moral consideration we extend to human beings means that we give the interests of nonhuman animals the same weight as comparable interests of human beings (Singer
Firstly, Singer claims that we should understand the concept of equality as a reason for accepting the conclusion of his argument. What he means by this is that the concept of equality is a moral ideal and not a simple assertion of fact (Singer 52). In other words, when we say that all human beings are equal, we do not assert that they are in fact equal in intelligence, moral capacity, physical strength, or similar matters of fact. Instead, we assert that they deserve equal consideration of interests as a basic moral principle, which will be explained …show more content…
That is to say, for any being that has interests, these interests must be taken as equally morally important with similar interests of another being. However, Singer notes that equal consideration of interests does not imply identical treatment. Instead, Singer argues that the principle of equality is equality of equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and rights (Singer 50). Extending to nonhuman animals the same moral consideration we extend to human beings means that we give the interests of nonhuman animals the same weight as comparable interests of human beings (Singer