Comments due by 11:59pm Sunday (9/15).
In class this week we considered a critical reply to Singer's principle of the equal consideration of interests. And previously we have considered some views from abolitionists that seem to contrast starkly with Singer's view.
Here I want you to consider this interview with Peter Singer where he discusses his own view, responds to some questions, clarifies his position, and challenges contemporary practices regarding animals.
The podcast is found here.
Discuss critically his views. Is he right about all this? Does he give good reasons for his views here? Any questions? Worries? Objections?
As always, take advantage of this opportunity to think together in community, to go hard after the arguments, to cultivate the habit of thinking in a sustained fashion on incredibly significant and terribly practical matters. Press and challenge each other, and do so in a way that is gracious and charitable and humble.
Peter Singer believes that in almost every situation that animals should not be used for human use and that living beings should be considered for their mental capacity and not their specie. Thus, according to his view, the mentally disabled would have less consideration than a pig. Therefore, in cases of testing in order to find cures for diseases, the mentally disabled would most likely be tested instead of animals. Singer would argue that the pig has a larger mental capacity and that they have a greater sense of suffering than a mentally handicap human, and thus the pig should not be tested on. If Singer’s view is expanded on, it could go on as saying that eating the mentally handicap was acceptable because they do not have a great mental capacity. However, that is not acceptable.
ReplyDeleteAnimals can take care of themselves. Even domesticated animals are wild and when given the opportunity can fend for themselves. However, many young children and mentally disabled humans cannot fend or take care of themselves. They need others to look after them, thus it is our moral duty to make sure that those who cannot care for themselves are cared for. This can include animals, however it should hold the mentally disabled above animals because they need more help than animals do. Overall, Peter Singer’s view can lead to a society that is just as corrupt as today’s society, just in different ways. Therefore, we need to care for those in our society now and then add animals to our care, not put animals above the care of our society.
Mollie Backode
Peter Singer just says that some animals have a better mental capacity then some humans. Which could be true when he goes into saying that a pig has a higher mental capacity than a mentally handicapped person. So meaning that we should use the mentally handicapped in testing in not a pig is not realistic. Based on we look at our own species as one of use either being mentally handicapped or normal we are all the same.
ReplyDeleteTara Jones
Singer also says that everyone should go vegetarian. I do not agree with him based on if everyone goes vegetarian how will we all survive. Most animals are vegetarians so that means people and animals would be fighting to survive. There is not enough food in the world to support a vegetarian lifestyle. There would also be an overpopulation of animals if we do not kill them and use them for food and other human needs.
I would say that he is right about some things in my mind but definitely not everything he says I can agree with.I like the way that he says that he prefers that people go out and kill the deer with one shot and get their food than the animal going through the slaughtering process and we getting our food from the super market. but then he confuses me on his thoughts at the same time by saying that most everyone should go and be a vegetarian. this is just stupid to me. people would be getting sick all the time because their immune systems are not keeping up like they should because we are living off lettuce, vegetables, and basically bushes. People would not be keeping up with getting their essential nutrients they should be getting. I'm not really sure why all these people keep saying that we should stop killing animals for food because there would be such a big population of any species just left to grow. He even admitted that it would be better for us to eat the animals otherwise there would be an over population and that would be more of a suffering death than if we shot them and ate them. Something that he also thinks about different than the other writers on this subject is he says that they are persons only as long as they can think by themselves and make their own decisions, but as soon as that ability is gone they are no longer considered people. This just seems strange to me considering that animals can most of the time thinking for themselves but now he is bringing the mentally handicapped down lower than the animals. I feel like he would soon be thinking that it is ok to eat them and use them for testing.
ReplyDeleteChelsea M.
What I will never understand is why people, even Singer in this interview, point to vegetarianism as a cure against factory farming. They should point to veganism. There is a distinct difference between veganism and vegetarianism. Vegetarians consume eggs and dairy products, which still supports factory farming. Vegans consume no animal products or by-products at all.
ReplyDeleteWhat I have to agree with Singer on is his rationality. For example, he does concede that in some instances it is okay to eat meat. It is okay to eat animals for aboriginal people, he said. He understands the necessity of eating meat for people that have no other options. For him, it is okay to eat meat if you are a great hunter that can kill without inflicting unnecessary pain. In this, Singer is practical. What happens in the real world and not just in rhetoric, is that animals die. But if they have to die it better be for a necessary purpose and painlessly. Like Singer said in the interview, it's not about the wrongness of killing, it's about the wrongness of suffering.
--Monica T
I agree with them in many different ways. a couple of there comments that I agree with though kind of contradict itself. I agree when he says that the way we treat and kill animals is kind of racist but then i also agree that we can possibly treat the animals differently due to the fact they are a different species kind of like we treat younger children or our elders, they all need different treatment just because of their ages. So with animals yes, we should possibly treat them differently just because they are a different species but at the same time i feel like it is racist, just because it is a living, breathing thing.
ReplyDeletePeter Singer is very rational with all his opinions. He is not biased in any way. His reasoning for not wanting people to eat meat is purely based on reducing animal suffering. He does agree that going out and killing a deer with a single bullet is better than sending the steer to slaughter.
ReplyDeleteI really like that he brings up that many vegetarians so not all have good reasoning to why they take on that lifestyle. Also that he believes that not everyone should have to be a vegetarian, like the aboriginals.
-Kimber Creteau
I agree with a lot that singer had to say in this interview. One of the particular things that had gotten brought up was where he said that the problem was that all animals can suffer and it's not the wrongness of killing them. Maybe that's why we do slaughter humanely now because we realized the way we were doing it before was making the animals suffer and we could see that, so we changed the way we were doing things so the animals suffered less.
ReplyDeleteCristin S.
Before I start with my response to Singer's interview, I want to react to a statement that Mollie made. She had stated that "even domesticated animals are wild and can fend for themselves when needed." I find that to be an arguable statement. In a lot of cases, yes it is probable that they could indeed fend for themselves. However, what about cats who get declawed? They would not be able to fend for themselves, or catch prey efficiently. Or those animals whom have come to be totally dependent on humans for all of their meals?
ReplyDeleteOne of the major points that Singer makes in the beginning of the interview is what he defines a 'person' to be. I agree with his definition of a being that is aware of their existence in, and through time. I also think it is interesting, and possibly true, that humans that are not mentally aware while their body is still living, are not persons, though they may have been at some time. Expanding on that to infants not being persons is what troubles me. While it logically makes sense, it is weird to think about myself as not a person until I was like 5 or so.
While Singer is adamant about what a 'person' entails, he is more troubled by animal suffering and speciesism. He states that sometimes, a non-human animal's preference is above that of a human's, though that case is not common.He is not saying that an animal's suffering always takes precedent over a human's, even if that animal may have a higher level of morality or intelligence. Singer also disagrees with speciesism, which he defines as using a certain species moral status to determine all species' moral status. Though he does not agree with speciesism, he does not argue that animals should be treated exactly the same as humans. He says that a difference is okay when it occurs because of a difference in interests. Which I also agree with.
I totally agree with Singer that some animals are classified as "persons" and others are not. It is great that he points out that anyone that is aware of their life over a span of time is a "person". It is intriguing that he makes the distinction that some animals do not have the capacity to be a "person". If an animal does not experience life over time, then how can they know that we are being cruel to them?
ReplyDeleteAnother good point is that some animals have the ability to suffer just as we do. I agree with this statement and, therefore, believe that we should not treat sentient beings in such a way to make them suffer for no reason. Factory farming is a good example of this. Singer explains that the animals are confined to a small space for their whole life. The have cheap bedding, cheap feed, and could even be suffering throughout their whole life without the workers knowing it. Free-range farming is a little better because the animals actually have a better life. I personally prefer to buy free-range food because I know that the animals actually had a better life than the animals in factor farms. I am also a hunter and appreciate how Singer agrees that shooting a deer is better than a cow going to slaughter. I agree that the death by shooting can be much less painful than using a captive bolt gun in farms.
Also, Singer brings up that some people still live in rural areas with harsh environments. Those people hunt and kill game to survive day to day. Also, these people use nearly ALL parts of the animals that they kill to provide clothes and other materials necessary to living.
Lastly, he brings up that animal research is getting a little out of control. He says that animals are being used for research when there could be other ways to research. An example he brought up was tissue cultures and the like. I agree that some research must be done on animals in order to be reliable. Now, I also agree that the bar would have to be set very high in order to use animals. The research would have to be extremely beneficial to the human race and there would have to be no other alternatives.
Singer brings up many strong arguments in this interview. His definition a "person" is a great idea. He says that in order to be a person, the organism must be able to realize that is the same being it was in the past as it will be in the present and the future. This is something that would allow other non-human animals the ability to be considered a person.
ReplyDeleteI think his view on mentally disabled people is sort of concerning though. He says that they may not be considered a person because their body outlived their intellectual ability. This is concerning because Singer is defending that non-human animals are "persons" and should be treated as we treat other "persons". This leaves me to question how Singer thinks we "should" treat the mentally handicapped.
Another point that I agree with Singer is when he says that in his eyes it is much more important for people to become a good shot and hunt for their own food compared to factory farming. Animals that are raised on factory farms are often left in unfair conditions which causes them to suffer. He also says that non-human animals have the ability to suffer just as we do. So it would be must more humane to shot and kill an animal in the wild compared to purchasing factory farmed meat.
I also liked when he was asked if everyone should be a vegetarian and he replied with a no. He said that there are many people who live in Alaska and are forced to live off the land. In my opinion Singer realizes that their are people who need to use animal in order to survive. I also feel this is a contradiction to his main arguments.
-Cameron K.
I think Singer's arguments are what most people in society feel. He brings up the point of well if there is this then its ok, or if there is that than its ok, and I think this is how most of society feels about animals rights. Dont get me wrong there are the extremists and the ones that do feel more strongly but I am just thinking of the majority. The ones that do not really pay attention to these kind of issues in their everyday life.
ReplyDeleteThe one thing I do not agree with Singer, and with many other philosophers with the same idea as Singer, is that they think a person is someone who has self awareness of themselves. Singer does not think that all non-human animals have this ability, I on the other hand do think that all non-human animals have this ability. My view of self-awarness is knowing that you are alive and striving to live another day and striving to survive. Non-human animals have this basic instinct with them, so how are they not self-aware? This is where I disagree with Singer.
But I do see how Singer see things in a utilitarian type of way. Most people do see things in this way, if it benefits the masses than it is acceptable. But I can also see how this type of thinking can turn into speceisism. Even if killing a human was going to benefit the masses there would be more of an out rage over killing the human, than if we had the option of killing a non-human animal. I also feel that Singer is to wishy-washy on his thoughts. Like I said before its a matter of situation if acts that affect animals are accepted on not by Singer.
--Alyssa T.
Right at the beginning of the interview Singer gets me going in saying that a chimpanzee can be a person because they have the ability to be aware of their surroundings and their own life. In my dictionary and own mind, the term "person" is only a categorical term used to describe a human. it is the same thing as saying that a dog is an animal, or a elephant is an animal. Human beings are classified and referred to as people or persons and the term person only corresponds to Homo sapiens.
ReplyDeleteSinger also argues that it is more humane and better to hunt our meat and kill it with a shot through the brain, but this is only better if you have a really good shot so that you don't put the animal through unnecessary pain. What bugs me about this is that as a society we have become way more humane in our slaughtering techniques. Most of the time animals are put unconscious and them killed. This way they don't suffer and feel the pain.
--Matt P.
While lessoning to Singer talk he puts across the point about what he thinks is a person. He says that he think a person is something that has a plan about the future and have the capabilities to know of their life. When he talks about humans as a whole about how we think that human feeling and things are over everything else. That we can take the life of animals because it is not the life of a human being or the life of that person.
ReplyDeleteSinger thinks that many of the things that we do with products and many other things that we do with animals including experimentation. But when he talks I feel as if he is not stuffing it down my throat to become a something I don't want to be. Even thought he thinks that it is moral wrong to kill animal, but then again he sits and talks about free range animals and kill game animals. Then he talks about the people who live of the animals he doesn't want to pull them out of their life and make them change but he does think that we need to almost stop using animals for every meal.
-Sara Hannon
After Listening to Peter Singers interview I would have to agree with Cameron in the fact that his view on what a person seems very well thought out however his views on mentally handicapped people are very skewed. He talks as if a person is defined as knowing their existence. This does make it possible to include sentient beings like monkeys. But it excludes many humans who suffer from mental disabilities. His response to this problem is saying at one point in life they were considered “persons” but what of a child born with a handicap? Are we not morally required to respect their rights?
ReplyDeleteThe next big point he brought up that made me think was when they discussed was factory farms vs. free range meat. He brought up the point of animals always being penned and when the narrator asked what problems he has with free range meat his first response was something along the lines of well people will find something wrong with that too. I just think he should have a better argument formed for this topic. But with all he did say I personally understand his views somewhat better now. He seemed to clarify many of the views he took that I did not understand.
-Josh P.
I thought that this interview/ discussion was more relate-able than any of the other interviews we watched and also for the majority of society. But some Singer's opinion of saying that not all non-humans have the ability to have self-awareness. I strongly disagree with this because all animals have the ability and instinct to survive and the will to live. Also animals know were their den/nest is at, they know if their young is ill. So therefore non-humans have the self-awareness; if they didn't how would they be able to survive without humans help?
ReplyDelete____ Michelle F.__
There were a few points that caught me eye. First was when he was describing what a person is. I think it is a little silly when these philosophers use these broader terms that they can apply their own definitions to. Although he had decent reasoning behind it , in the end I view it as simply playing on peoples emotions. The next point was when he brought up speciesism. this i thought he had really good argument for. I think he is right in saying a lot of the time we pick humans simply because they are humans. While it may seem silly to look at it that way now i'm sure there were people who felt it was silly to look at other races equally back in the day as well. Finally they touched on animal testing. Now this would have been harder to argue in the past when science was not as advanced, but i think he is correct. There are lots of good ways to test including things like tissue cultures and such.
ReplyDelete-Matt Powers-
meat from the super market.
ReplyDeletePeter Singer makes the argument that humans are inflicting more suffering than what is justified by the benefits received from the animal. When asked the question, “Isn’t that an argument for eating free range meat rather than factory farmed meat?” Singer brushes it aside by saying that it is an argument stating that factory farming is a clear cut case and example of humans inflicting more suffering than what is justified by the outcomes of such practices. To me he answered the question by restating his previous comment only with a more authoritative vibe. Why does Singer sweep it under the rug like he does? Why is there no more support for his argument? Is there actually any proof that factory farmed animals suffer from the farming practices? Does this form of farming truly hinder the psychological health of non-human animals?
------Nick------
At first I was really anit-Singer when reading his article but after this podcast I'm not really sure where I stand. He seemed very strong and opinionated in everything he said in the article, but when asked to talk on free range meats, he just kind of pushed it aside with the comment that people will find something wrong with that too. It seems like since he has such strong viewpoints he should have a better defense. I found myself wondering if all his arguments were simply because he thinks it is wrong or if he is defending animals because others think so.
ReplyDeleteVikki