One of the readings we were assigned to read this week was Peter Singer’s “All Animals are Equal.” (Singer, Peter (1974) “All Animals Are Equal,” Philosophic Exchange: Vol. 5: No. 1, Article 6.
Available at: http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/phil_ex/vol5/iss1/6)
He argued in favour of equal rights for all sentient beings(beings who can experience pleasure/pain such as animals and human beings) where there would be non-maleficence treatment towards them (unlike the treatment of present-day farm animals, testing on animals, etc.). He also brings up the fact that the majority of human beings are speciesists, where certain species’ interests are held above other species’ interests (for example, the general treatment of dogs as pets is significantly better than a factory farm hen) despite the fact that all of us are equal in sentience.
With this information at hand, which normative ethical theory would Singer approve of in the context of “All Animals are Equal?” The four theories that were mentioned last week were: Consequentialism, Deontology, Contractarianism, and Virtue Ethics.
First, the ethical theory of Utilitarianism (Consequentialism) satisfies Singer and his argument on behalf of all animals, for he has issues with the current treatment of a lot of animals on this planet. However, it seems that human happiness is too much of a focus with this ethical theory in particular, as the term egalitarian is noted under the Utilitarianism outline without the mention of animals (Welchman, Introduction to Utilitarianism Slides, 4). Yet, the impartiality and the idea of consequences of the first principle on Utilitarianism does seem to fit the basic criteria of what Singer is trying to argue: everyone who has preferences wants their preferences met…so since everyone’s preference is to not be harmed, should this not apply to animals as well? Since the satisfaction of factory farm animals’ preferences in not wanting to be harmed would have been violated, would there not be consequences for the ones causing and contributing to their harm?
Second, the ethical theory of Deontology would not fair well in the context of “All Animals are Equal” because of its focus on respecting the autonomy of other people; this could be an argument against animal equality rights, as Kant states that only people reflecting “personhood” qualities should be respected in addition to their (autonomous) acts. (Welchman, Kant’s Deontological Ethics of Respect, 10)
Third, the ethical theory of Contractarianism would also not fair well. With Contractarianism, there are no universal principles, and that cooperation is the foundation for common rules to “limit the destruction.” (Welchman, Introducing Contractarianism and Virtue Ethics, 2) Also according to this theory, there is no right or wrong before the cooperating between indivudals to make common laws. Based off this logic, there seems to be a focus on the individual, rather than the collective; if all individuals agree that factory farming is a good way to benefit from it financially, then the needs/lives of the animals are disregarded…this would be viewed from the perspective of Contractarians as good.
Lastly, the ethical theory of Virtue Ethics would not be the strongest theory to uphold the argument in favour of the equality of all animals. While the second and third principles provide some reasonable points, the first principle is weak in that it is not impartial to everyone’s conduct because only individuals with good character do not need moral rules applied to them. (Welchman, Introducing Contractarianism and Virtue Ethics, 10) While a person might have good character initially, that does not mean that he/she will uphold their virtues for their entire life, as there are many life experiences that could create bad character. Also, the notion of “good character” does not mean they are against the treatment of animals that are experimented on for their individual needs. Based off of this reasoning, these individuals with “good character” get a free pass from moral laws.
By: Melissa
Hi Melissa! This is a great blog post. I appreciate how you analyze each normative ethical theory in detail and compare them to Singer’s stance in “All Animals Are Equal.”
I agree that Kant’s deontology doesn’t support Singer’s justifications for equality amongst all species, given Kant focuses on autonomous personhood and human dignity (Welchman & Kahane 2014, 1). However I am reminded of Regan, who applies the deontological concept of universalizing a maxim to our treatment of all species. Although Regan goes beyond Kant’s focus on human autonomy, his process of ethical justification seems to reflect that of Kant. For example, Regan describes how mistreatment of humans is unethical and universalizes this by explaining that “since this is true in the case of these humans, we cannot rationally deny the same in the case of animals” (3). I think it would be really interesting to explore this connection and see if Singer, as a consequentialist, agrees!
I also agree that Singer’s stance of equality amongst species supports utilitarianism and the priority of maximizing happiness for all. I think to strengthen your point, you could pull from the introduction of “All Animals Are Equal,” where Singer insists “that we extend to other species
the basic principle of equality that most of us recognise should be extended to
all members of our own species” (1974, 103).
Thanks so much!
-Mary
Good point Mary! You are Melissa are both quite right about Kant’s version of deontology; it won’t justify giving non-autonomous being equal consideration. But there are other deontologists around who disagree with Kant’s insistence on a strict distinction in moral status between ‘persons’ and ‘things.’ and consequently, the come up with principles of respect for beings other than persons. Regan is one of them. [And we’ll be reading another kind of deontological normative ethical theorist next week]
Hello Melissa,
You have a well thought out post that does a great job of comparing Singer’s views to different theories. It would appear that Singer would be in agreement most with consequentialism as consequentialism is all about trying to bring out the best consequences for everyone. I think it is good how you brought up that every individual has preferences and they want their preferences to be met.
Regan goes on to explain an issue with the utilitarian view.He says that it doesn’t focus enough on the individuals, and focuses too much on happiness. I think consequentialism and utilitarianism can both end up over focused on happiness and not on individual value.
Singer says that all animals are equal, but from reading more about utilitarianism, utilitarianism does not seem to equalize the animals.
Potentially Singer might be more inclined to agree with a view of Kant’s once the kantian view has been transformed to put more emphasis on non-autonomous animals having equality. It would be long to get into for a comment, but I will put a link down below to Korskaard’s views on Kant and how a Kantian case can be made for animals. I think Singer wouid be likely or at the very least willing to accept this deontological view.
https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=acwp_awap
https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/34903186/Korsgaard.A.Kantian.Case.for.Animal.Rights.pdf?sequence=
Yes its important to be quite clear about what is being ‘equalize’ (so to speak.) When a nonhuman animal and a human have equivalent interests, Singer holds that we should give them equal consideration. So its interests and preferences that are being ‘equalized,’ not necessarily the beings possessing those interests.
Hello Melissa, I agree with your point that Virtue Ethics might not be the strongest theory to support non-human animal equity, the definition of a “good character” is vague and a person described as a “good character” could hardly be perfect at any angle. Therefore, the “good character” attribute didn’t state that a person will be against implement harm to non-human animals for the trivial benefit of human beings.
As human beings, we cannot classify equality by intelligence or moral capacity, if we do classify equality by intelligence or moral capacity, then induce harm to infants with not yet developed intelligence and moral capacity can be justified.
“instead we should make it quite clear that the claim to equality does not depend on intelligence, moral capacity, physical strength, or similar matters of fact. Equality is a moral ideal, not a simple assertion of fact” (Singer 106). There is no doubt that human beings possess more intelligence than other non-human animals. To some extent, human beings decide whether most animals live or die. If it were purely based on intelligence, then man would be superior to other animals. But, as mentioned before, individual abilities’ prominence can not be taken as a basis for equality.
As highly intelligent animals, human beings should establish a correct view of equality from the moral level. I once had an experience that impressed me deeply. Late one night, my friend drove me home when a mother and daughter tried to cross the street. My friend immediately stopped the car. It was not until the mother and daughter were safe across the road that my friend slowly started the car. There were no traffic lights, and my friend could have sped by without waiting until the mother and daughter crossed the road. Therefore, I sincerely think my friend is a kind person. A year later, on the same night, my friend drove me to the supermarket. Near the supermarket, a stray dog appeared on the side of the road. To my surprise, my friend stopped his car and waited quietly. It was not until five minutes later that my friend started the car and left when the dog strolled across the street. Until that moment, I realized that my friend was not the only kind and possessed a moral value beyond ordinary people. In his eyes, both the mother and daughter he met a year ago and the stray dog he met later are equal. Although stray dogs have no so-called wealth and social status, their lives and rights should be treated equally.
In a word, as intelligent animals, people should stand in the moral angle to defend the idea of equality of all things. If human beings do not support the concept of equality, then human beings and other non-human animals will not coexist harmoniously, and the world will be in chaos. In other words, the idea of world equality as a high idea exists because of human beings. If human beings reject the notion of equality, there will be no equality and fairness in the world.
Source: Peter Singer, “All Animals Are Equal. ” Philosophic Exchange (1974):106.