Free Essay About All Animals Are Equal By Peter Singer

In All Animals Are Equal Peter Singer argues that discrimination’s basis depends on sex. The author argues that each species is being judged because of the differences between other species` practices and attitudes. He mentions that non-humans should be respected equally as humans. In addition, Singer points out that success in life should be equal between humans and animals. He supports this conclusion by saying that we are against discrimination bases in the color, sex or non-human. We will still see a shock ground while there is no equality with blacks, women, poor people and animals. He has some reasons to prove that we are against discrimination. One of the proofs is that it’s hard to avoid the racism because some people believe that racism is of environmental origin. I would like to highlight the relation between what I mentioned about Peter Singer’s statements and with a statement that says: “[] 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) I would infer that the good morals will lead to better life between species.
My view on the article coincides with the author’s claim that humans and non-humans should be equal in respect with no discrimination. Singer supports that by indicating that equal should not be on right. He tries to tell that animals don’t know or understand the life as human does. In the article Peter Singer mentions that it`s difficult to change people’s attitude or practices against any species because of different perspectives each group has. The article highlights a moral that each group should help to reduce the discrimination. Furthermore, people can make their lives suffering from issue or being unintelligent doesn’t relate to your color or sex. As it saying on the article
I think in some point I would agree with Peter Singer. ‘The creator’ created each spices different for many reasons. He created humans with brains in order to help them to differentiate good and bad, but it doesn’t mean that animal doesn’t have intellect – they do, but it is different. However, that doesn’t mean we should not respect non-humans. I totally agree that animals should have respect in specific areas. For examples, pets should be respected and treated as what they do to the owners and community.
On the other hand, there are such kinds of animals that will react accordingly to their instincts even if you respect and live with it for a long time. For example, you deal with a lion and you are friends from a long time and the lion knows you well, although, believe it or not, the lion won`t consider whether to eat you or not if he gets hungry. He is going to do what makes him feel full and won't consider the friendship. To sum up, animals have a very specific intellect that can help them in their life. Every human has a different intellect which helps him or her to improve their life.
According to Sarah Albonesi “not all humans possess the same intelligence level. Animals such as dogs, pigs, and dolphins, for instance, all have IQs equal to or greater than those of babies or those who are mentally handicapped. We certainly don’t take advantage of babies or those who are mentally handicapped in our society; these human beings are considered members of our society, and have legal rights. Although some discrimination does occur against those who are mentally handicapped, it’s generally not considered acceptable. Most people would agree that it would be wrong to discriminate against another human being on the basis of their IQ level, and thus we cannot reasonably discriminate against animals based on their intelligence”. (Albonesi) Naturally, humans and non-humans are complementary to each other on this planet.

Works Cited

Albonesi, Sarah. ‘Discrimination Archives’. Veganismcom. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Feb. 2015.
Regan, Tom and Singer, Peter. (eds.). Animal Rights and Human Obligations. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1989, pp. 148-162