Animal Liberation or Human Oppression?
In the article “Animal Liberation” by Peter Singer the author argues against specieism which is discrimination on the grounds that a being belongs to a certain species. He expresses that all beings capable of suffering should be worthy of equal consideration and not doing so is no more justified than discrimination based on skin color. He believes animal’s rights should be based on their ability to feel and identify pain instead of their intelligence. Singer argues that intelligence does not provide a basis for providing nonhuman animals any less consideration than intellectually challenged humans. Although he does not argue that we shouldn’t use animals for food, he suggests adopting a vegetarian diet. Animal liberation is an important issue but human health and survival carries more weight and is of greater concern.
Peter Singer is suggesting that certain tests and procedures should not be carried out on animals. Although I sympathize with his passion for the animals, if we don’t test on them how would we determine if products were safe for the human race? It sounds harsh, but it’s the ugly truth. Test or ran on these animals to ensure safety to the human public. Although harsh and extreme, these tests play an important role in our society. At the end of the day it all ties into the circle of life. Humans are not the strongest species but we are the dominant species because of our intelligence. It is possible that if we didn’t test products on animals people would die, which means less animal consumption, which leads to a greater animal to human ratio.
Although I do not completely agree with Singer I do sympathize with the animals. I don’t believe they should be tortured or forced to suffer in any form unnecessarily. Taking the health and well being of the animals into consideration while simultaneously considering the lively hood of the human race there is bound to...