all animals are created equal Flashcards
What does Peter Singer argue about the scope of moral consideration across species?
All sentient beings deserve equal consideration of interests, regardless of species. Equality isn’t about giving the same rights, but about weighing suffering and well-being equally for all beings that can feel them.
How does Singer compare speciesism to other forms of discrimination like racism or sexism?
Speciesism is an unjustified bias that privileges one’s own species, just like racism or sexism privilege one’s own race or sex. It fails to treat similar interests with equal concern.
According to Singer, what is the correct basis for applying the principle of equality?
The principle of equality should be based on equal consideration of interests, not on traits like intelligence, ability, or rationality. Sentience is what matters morally.
What criterion does Singer identify as necessary for moral consideration?
Sentience—the capacity to suffer or experience enjoyment. A being must be sentient to have interests that matter morally. Rationality or language is not required.
What does Singer say about how philosophy treats the issue of animal ethics?
Philosophy often perpetuates speciesism by failing to challenge assumptions about human superiority and by relying on vague concepts like “human dignity” to exclude animals from moral concern.
Why do some argue that humans deserve more moral consideration than animals?
Because humans are seen as rational and self-aware, unlike animals. Moral status is often tied to cognitive traits.
What is the justification given for valuing all humans—even impaired ones—over animals?
That species membership itself confers moral worth; being human is considered sufficient, regardless of individual traits or abilities.
Why is “human dignity” often cited in excluding animals from moral equality?
Human dignity” is invoked as a special moral value exclusive to humans, suggesting that humans are ends-in-themselves while animals are not.
How is moral equality defended while maintaining human superiority?
By claiming that human norms (like rationality) set the standard, and impaired humans still fall under that norm, whereas animals do not.
How does Singer respond to the argument that animals lack rationality and therefore lack rights?
Many humans (infants, cognitively impaired) also lack rationality but are still given moral consideration. Rationality is not a fair criterion.
What is Singer’s rebuttal to the idea that being human automatically grants moral value?
This is speciesism—valuing humans simply for being human is as arbitrary as racism. Moral worth must rest on morally relevant traits, like sentience.
What does Singer say about the use of “human dignity” to exclude animals from moral concern?
“Human dignity” is a vague, unsupported concept often used when better arguments are lacking. It has no clear basis and disguises bias.
How does Singer counter the idea that animal use is justified by human benefit?
Most uses (like eating meat) serve trivial interests (taste, convenience), which cannot justify inflicting serious suffering on sentient beings.
What is Singer’s reply to treating impaired humans better than animals with higher awareness?
Doing so reveals bias—if we reject using impaired humans for experiments or food, we should reject doing so to animals with similar or greater awareness.
