Animal Liberation and Their Moral Status Essay

Peter singer, author of the highly revered book entitled brute Liberation, caused kind of a stir when he released this book in 1975. Considered by some as the Bible of sentient being rights, the book aimed to halt the corrupt that a distribute of non homophile animals were experiencing at the expense of homophile cr occupyions. This would include the use of animals for experimentation, as well as the consumption of animals as part of our everyday meals. The book make it a visor to emphasize the fact that majority of the humans argon taking advantage of animals, and treating them with disregard and without any form of consideration whatsoever.Many throng credited the effectiveness of Singers 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 signifi firet capture in the past. Alex Pacheco helped found People for the Ethical Treatment of tools (PeTA), after reading Singers book. And man y people still use his book as a reference when discussing the rights of animals (Internal Vegetation Union, 2006).Even so, Singers skills as a messenger cant 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 womens 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.Singers Animal RightsStill, 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 st ill 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 disturb 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 wouldnt involve hurting them in any way or form. By doing animal research, whether it is wishinged or could be beneficial, it is still morally wrong to shoot the breeze injury upon animals, as they too have the tendency to feel pain.Singers 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 wouldnt do to our fellow species. If a scientist would consider it immoral to experiment on an some other human being, the same sentiment should be shared to anima ls.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 a means towards our end, and treat them as mere commodities which only survive to satisfy our own needs, and should be treated as fellow living things (Lim, 2008).Singers 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 great 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 apply animals as test subjects should not be condoned, especially if the animalss health and life is in parr el. 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 humans.Contradicting Singers Argumentsthough some of Singers 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, shouldnt 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 good as we are now, had the same primal instincts as any other animal. Humans, for the most part, are born as omnivo res (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 constitution 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, its 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 beli eve that Singer had it right when he pointed out the abuse that animals endure when being used as test subjects for scientific experiments. This order 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 cant 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 racing circuit of living creatures.ReferencesBest, Steven. Philosophy Under Fire The Peter Singer Controversy (1991). Retrieved 18 June 2008 from http//www.animalliberationfront.com/Saints/Authors/Interviews/Peter %20Singersummary.htmLim, Alvin. On Peter Singers Ethics of Animal Liberation (2008). Retrieved 18 June 2008 from http//chlim01.googlepages.com/singer.htmProfessor Peter Singer (2006). International Vegetation Union. Retrieved 18 June 2008 from