All Animals are Equal
Peter Singer argues that all animals are equal and should be taken into consideration just like
humans. To better understand this, we have to properly perceive the basic moral principle of equality.
Singer, uses racism, and sexism to correlate the liberal movement of non-animal human rights. He uses
“speciesism” to show how the human race puts their own species over another in the absence of moral
relevant differences. Singer urges “that we extend to other species the basic principle of equality that
most of us recognize that should be extended to all members of our own species.”(Singer) He makes three
claims to combat speciesism; based on equal consideration, equality is a moral ideal; not factual, and a
capacity for suffering is a prerequisite for rights.
Is it really that absurd to say animals have rights? Singer claims that the issue of animal rights it
that of the same in the past, such as the civil movement rights and women’s right even present-day
LGBTQ rights. This liberation movement have in common to “demand an expansion of our moral
horizon and an extension of reinterpretation of the basic moral principle of equality.”(Singer) These rights
should be extended to non-human animals. There are obvious differences between humans and other
species, these differences call for different rights. Equality of rights is not the sameness of rights. Singer
argues that “is equality of consideration, and equal consideration for different being may lead to different
treatment and different rights.”(Singer) The idea of equality is the one of equal treatment regardless of
real differences.
The first premise of Singers’ argument is if beings are capable of suffering, then they have
interests, therefore, the interest of non-human animals have in avoiding suffering should be on the same
level as human beings who avoid suffering. Singer does in fact make a good claim, as in there is enough
