All Animals Are Equal
In the article All animals are equal is a hypothetical commentary which was expounded by Peter Singer to illustrate the plight of other animals at the hands of humans. The notion that all animals are equal is used to denote that animals have the same privilege of their life as humans have and therefore deserve to be understood as part of an interdependent society. However, many of the critics of this understanding are of the conviction that animals are incapable of entering a social contract and therefore cannot be considered to have the same rights as humans. The primary aspect which comes across all spectrums of debates is that all animals with humans included have the chance to live a life devoid of suffering inflicted upon them by other species.
One of the fundamental convictions of Singer is that it is immoral to eat animal meat. In many societies today, many people eat meat because they can obtain it and this has therefore raised the controversy of the ethics which regard the eating of meat. Therefore, to many who slaughter meat for the purposes of eating meat have no moral justification when it is done for the sake of the taste of meat (Singer, 1974). Eating meat because one likes the taste of it and no other reason can be termed as an unethical behavior which violates the purposes eating. There is a sense in which one can argue that eating is not primarily to tasting different foods but rather it is a universal process which has a higher purpose for human existence. This is the reason why Singer on the aspect of speciesism was convinced that humans have no higher moral standing than other animals which includes killing them for whatever reason. Humans are biased towards animals as they consider it as morally wrong to kill someone who want to continue living but not an issue in killing other animals.
Singer argues that humans can eat and become healthy even without having to eat eggs, meat, or dairy products. It is in this context that he is convinced that when humans eat meat, they typically use it as a means to their end and therefore it is unjustifiable to equality of animal rights (Singer, 1974). Animals converted to food on the plates of humans is the same as regarding the life of animals as subordinate to the taste to the life of the animals. Singer laments this is an undue course because it is wrong to satisfy our palate at the expense of the lives of animals.
Scientifically, it has been proven that one can have a nutritious diet and healthy life by simply having non-animal products in their diets. Singer (1974) argues that it is possible to have a proper nutritional diet when humans feed on foodstuffs such as Soya beans, high protein vegetables and beans. This is then amplified by the concern that animal products have been confirmed to cause health problems if consumed in certain quantities for a period. Therefore, one can choose other option of diet which has similar nutrient value without the necessary ham to animals. Animals deserve to live just like humans and when they are slaughteredfor the purposes of food alone, then it courses moral questions on the value of life and the interests of humans.
One of the most immoral aspects of meat consumption is the matter of how the meat finds its way to the dining table. Of concern is how animals are bred and fed to make them sustainable to the supply and demand of the produce.
Many animals are subjected to deplorable living conditions, kept in facilities which are not relative to their natural habitats. There have been chances that these animals have been converted machines which blend out meat and other products to satiate the appetite of humans. Animals deserve to live and grow at their natural pace and they should not be subjected chemical and biological engineering to speed up their maturing process (Singer, 1974). How animals are treated in abattoirs is something which is demeaning. Even though animals cannot speak a language which human can understand, they should not be subjected to painful and undeserving painful dying process to obtain their products. This can be understood as terrorism to the world of animals since humans are inclined to further their agenda of living and surviving by limiting or exterminating the conditions of animals. All through history, there are animals which have become extinct due to overhunting by humans for food. Therefore, Singer argues that killing and consuming animal products for the single aspect of satiating their taste buds or for nutritional content. It is speciesism and morally wrong to kill other animals who do not belong to the homo sapiens and consider humans life with more sanctity than those of other animals.
Reference
Singer, P. (1974). Philosophic Exchange. All Animals Are Equal, Volume 5(1).
Comments