All Animals are Equal…or are they?

In his classical essay “All Animals Are Equal,” Peter Singer makes the argument for animal liberation. He bases his arguments on what he calls “equal consideration of interests,” and concludes that animals deserve as much rights and liberation as humans. To build his argument, Singer details former liberation movements and chronicles the ridicule and abject parodies that were slapped on them for the simple fact that they were revolutionary and challenged common held beliefs of the society that they were presented to. In particular, he narrates the history of the Women’s movement and the subsequent criticism and mockery that was used against it fundamentally because of its revolutionary nature.

Singer uses the example of Mary Wollenstonecraft’s “Vindication of the rights of Women” in 1792 to show the utter ridicule and mockery that can be placed on an intellectual and ground-breaking theories and ideas merely because they go against common-held misconceptions. He uses satire/mockery of her ideas by the Cambridge philosopher Thomas Taylor in his “Vindication of the rights of the brutes” to illustrate the inherent problems revolutionary ideas face. Moreover, he explains the intrinsic challenges of challenging the status quo.

Singer argues, “A liberation movement demands an expansion of our moral horizons and an extension or reinterpretation of the basic moral principle of equality.” Thus, Singer is wary of the term “last remaining form of discrimination,” instead he argues that, “if we have learnt anything from the liberation movements, we should have learnt how difficult it is to be aware of latent prejudice in our attitudes to particular groups until this prejudice is forcefully pointed out.”

Singer recognizes that there are differences between humans and animals, yet he argues that, “these differences must give rise to some differences in rights that each have….however, (recognizing this obvious fact) is no barrier to the case for extending the basic principle of equality to nonhuman animals.” To develop this point, he uses the differences in women and men and how these differences might give rise to different rights. Instead he argues that the, “extension of the basic principle of equality from one group to another does not imply that we must treat both groups in exactly the same way, or grant exactly the same rights to both groups.”

Beyond Singer’s humane arguments and progressive ideals, it is hard to imagine how an animal can share the same rights as a human. For example, I am against homicide and murder because I belief that doing so violates the rights and liberties of the victim and causes social problems for instance it could lead to widowing a woman and forcing a child to grow without his/her father/mother. So, it is hard to imagine how killing say a cow to feed others in order to quell their hunger can cause moral dilemma. Our diet calls for certain consumption of meat and it is hard to visualize how the world would be like as a result of ban on eating meat based on “liberation/rights” arguments. Additionally to develop this idea even more, say I milked a cow and drank its milk without the consent of the cow; does this violate the rights of the cows? Apparently it does according to Singer and this is not only inconvenient but also unrealistic. Cows feed the grass and humans consume cows, same way as a lion eats deer and other animals to stay alive. The ecosystem is a wonderfully balancing arrangement.

I agree with Singer to the extent of treating animals humanely and respecting their rights. I don’t support mistreating either pets or wild animals and unnecessarily shooting them as is done during game-hunting. I feel that animals have certain rights. This doesn’t mean that one shouldn’t consume meat or milk cows.