Animal Liberation and Their Moral Status Essay

Peter Singer, author of the highly revered book entitled ‘Animal Liberation’, caused quite a stir when he released this book in 1975. Considered by some as the Bible of animal rights, the book aimed to halt the abuse that a lot of nonhuman animals were experiencing at the expense of human beings. This would include the use of animals for experimentation, as well as the consumption of animals as part of our everyday meals. The book made it a point to emphasize the fact that majority of the humans are taking advantage of animals, and treating them with disregard and without any form of consideration whatsoever. Many people credited the effectiveness of Singer’s book for the sudden burst of animal rights into the mainstream of issues surrounding society. No doubt, his views on animal rights has had a significant influence in the past. Alex Pacheco helped found People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), after reading Singer’s book. And many people still use his book as a reference when discussing the rights of animals (Internal Vegetation Union, 2006). Even so, Singer’s skills as a messenger can’t alone explain how concern about the status and treatment of animals has moved into the mainstream of public policy discussions. Master communicator though he be, the culture had to be ready for his message. It had been prepared by several factors, among them the civil rights, peace and women’s movements and the apparent failure of science and technology to deliver fully on all their promises. Chernobyl, holes in the ozone layer, pesticides in the food chain, and the possibility of a brave new world created by cloning and genetic engineering have put the suspicion and fear of scientists into our collective hearts. Singer’s Animal Rights Still, Singer proceeds to emphasize a lot of his points in his book, as to why animal cruelty should be abolished from society. For one thing, animals and humans, despite some similarities, are still so relatively different that it would be pointless to apply the results that one would acquire from animal testing, and apply it to humans. Aside from that, both animal pain and its relief by means of anesthesia not only interferes with the experimental results, but invalidates it as well. Also, there are now numerous alternatives to animal research, that wouldn’t involve hurting them in any way or form. By doing animal research, whether it is needed or could be beneficial, it is still morally wrong to inflict injury upon animals, as they too have the tendency to feel pain. Singer’s main point of concern is that nonhuman animals should not be subjected to being treated so harshly and without compassion. It is not to say that animals should be treated as equals; rather, humans should not do to them what we wouldn’t do to our fellow species. If a scientist would consider it immoral to experiment on another human being, the same sentiment should be shared to animals. If it would be morally unacceptable to use human beings as a source of food, then why is eating animals any different? Just as it is wrong to kill a fellow human being, so should be the case with animals as well. Singer believed that animals should not be â€Å"a means towards our end†, and treat them as mere commodities which only exist to satisfy our own needs, and should be treated as fellow living things (Lim, 2008). Singer’s philosophical views hold a lot of truth, as the abuse that some animals face due to the work of human beings should be considered as morally wrong. Animals should not be subjected to all sorts of scientific experiments, even if these scientists claim that this for the greater good. Some scientists would argue that the studies they make on animals would benefit us, as their discoveries could pave the way for a better understanding of life in general. But using animals as test subjects should not be condoned, especially if the animals’s health and life is in parrel. Animals should not be harmed, period, no matter what the circumstances are. In terms of preserving their lives, their rights should be just as a high as any human’s. Contradicting Singer’s Arguments Though some of Singer’s arguments may be valid, I cannot say that I agree with some of his beliefs. For instance, in the animal kingdom, when a dominant animal kills one of its prey and feeds it to its family, is that animal considered a murderer? Would it also be considered as, ironically, inhuman? Some would say that animals kill other animals as part of their primal insticts, as a need to feed themselves in order to survive. But if humans eat other animals, shouldn’t it also be considered as the same primal needs? Singer might consider the thought of eating meat to be unruly and wrong, but I beg to differ. Since the beginning of time, the earliest of humans, being not as intelligent as we are now, had the same primal instincts as any other animal. Humans, for the most part, are born as omnivores (Best, 1991). We cannot help it if we crave to eat meat rather than just fruits, vegetables and other natural produce. So for someone to dispute that humans should not eat animals is to go against our own human nature and instincts. Of course, its wrong to eat a fellow human being. But how often have you seen any other animal eating its own kind, too? In that case, it’s not even about being a species of higher intelligence. Not even animals of lower intellect would do such a thing. The point is,   eating another species is part of our natural instincts; not as humans, but as natural-born omnivores. And to say that we are morally wrong to eat anything other than what grows on the ground would be to contradict the nature of not only humans, but the entire animal kingdom as well. We may be more intelligent than animals, but have the same primal needs as animals do, and to deprive us of following that need would also be considered wrong. How then, do we come to a compromise? I believe that Singer had it right when he pointed out the abuse that animals endure when being used as test subjects for scientific experiments. This method is not only unnecessary, but it should be considered as morally wrong. The same goes for sports hunting. The killing of animals should not be done as a leisurely activity, as we would not do it against our fellow man. In terms of consuming other animals as food, while I personally believe there should be limits in terms of choosing what animals can be considered, it should not be taken against those who prefer to eat meat. We as omnivores have our own needs. though not to say that we can’t survive without eating meat, it is still part of our nature to crave for it. In terms of morals, humans should not be held accountable for consuming other animals, as it is what binds us with them. To conclude, animal rights have long ways to go before any permanet laws could be issued that would be fair on both sides. Though Singer stresses a lot of important points, one still cannot deny our own rights, not as humans but as part of the circle of living creatures.   References Best, Steven. Philosophy Under Fire: The Peter Singer Controversy (1991). Retrieved 18 June    2008 from http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Saints/Authors/Interviews/Peter  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   %20Singer—summary.htm Lim, Alvin. On Peter Singer’s Ethics of Animal Liberation (2008). Retrieved 18 June 2008   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   from http://chlim01.googlepages.com/singer.htm Professor Peter Singer (2006). International Vegetation Union. Retrieved 18 June 2008 from