Equality For Animals Essay, Research Paper

In chapter three, Singer continues his discussion on equality, however this time, it isn t just applied to equality of humans, but also the equality of animals.

He does this by basing implications for our disposition towards speciesism in practice (in more general terms, using animals for food), experimenting on animals, whether or not animals can feel pain, the fact that since animals eat each other, why can t we (humans) eat them also, the differences between humans and animals, and finally, he talks about ethics and reciprocity.

Chapter three starts with Singer trying to establish an introduction to the basis of equality. He starts off by introducing various points to help his argument that all humans are equal.

The first topic of discussion regards using animals for food. Singer discusses the fact whether we as humans eat animals out of necessity or luxury. He uses the example of the Eskimo, which kills animals for food and clothing (basically a necessity), however, in industrialized countries, people tend to eat animals solely out of luxury.

Again, Singer uses another example to illustrate how animals are somewhat tortured so that we as humans can be satisfied (one of his examples is how hens (which produce eggs) are kept in cages so small, they aren t able to stretch their wings).

In my own opinion, I feel that the killing of animals to satisfy our needs and wants is reasonable. Though I don t necessarily agree with the torturing of animals, I do feel that we as humans, who are (right now) the main/top species in the world, are where we are because we are able to make decisions on what we want and are able to get it at the most efficient way possible.

Singer then discusses the experimentation on animals. He justifies by using many examples, that using animals for experiments, even for the good of mankind is not right. Using the example of how cosmetic companies would drop concentrated solutions of their products into the eyes of rabbits to see its effects (the Draize Test) is just one example. Another example which was brought up was one in which the results would unlikely be used. The US armed forces performed an experiment on rhesus monkeys would be forced to run in a wheel. And whenever the monkeys would slow down, the wheel would also slow down, resulting in an electric shock on the monkeys. Once the monkey(s) were trained to run for long periods of time, they would be injected with lethal doses of radiation in which they would still be forced to run (even though they would be sick and vomiting). This test would show the researchers the effects on soldiers during a nuclear attack.

After reading this part of the chapter, I for one believe that the experimenting on animals is not justified at all, unless the experimenting on humans is also permitted, regardless for whatever purpose.

Singer then shifts discussion to the question on whether or not animals can feel pain. Here Singer gives a comparison on how animals respond to pain with how his own daughter responds. When animals feel pain, though they cannot talk, they behave in a manner in that is different from normal. Humans however can communicate; -so how does any comparison between human and animal work? Well, for one, when everyone is born, verbal communication is not developed, however babies are still able to display discomfort. I believe that animals can also feel pain, as if the fact that there reaction towards pain is not enough, scientifically, animals with a nervous system in their vertebrates, have the ability to feel pain.

Another implication by Singer is that if animals eat each other, why can we as humans eat them also? Well, he explains that animals, unlike humans, eat either out of necessity or to make some sort of a point. We as humans however, eat animals out of luxury, we neither have to, nor need to eat animals, but we eat them solely because we want to.

Again, in my opinion, it is not a matter of needs or wants (but they certainly play a major role). We as humans eat animals because we can. Though Singer argues that humans shouldn t eat animals out of luxury (however necessity is acceptable), I disagree. I believe that humans are the higher life form, and if we feel the want or need to eat an animal, we can.

Finally Singer talks about the question on whether there is a difference between humans and animals. He argues that all animals and we (humans) are all part of God s creation. And hence we are all equal. He continues his argument that all beings, whether human or animal have spirits/souls, -that make us all similar, and in a sense, equal.

I believe that this is foolish. The fact of whether God had anything to do with humans or animals is completely irrelevant. The fact is that we as humans have greater intellectual abilities than that of animals, and hence are able to take advantage of it.