Peter Singer’s
PHI 103
March 2, 2014
Although many people claim in recent years a number of oppressed groups have campaigned about Animals being equal to human being. We should extend non-human rights to animals the same equality as a human being is given the same consideration. All animals can feel pain just as a retarded human being they has feeling.
The classic Black Liberation movement (CBL), has demanded an end to prejudice and discrimination made on blacks as second class citizens. One way we are able to reply to this argument by saying the case is equal between men and women should not be valid, and extend (non-human) rights to animals. Peter Singer believes “all animals are equal” and should be granted moral status, similar to that of a human being inhabitants. There are a difference between a person who is hunt and a person who murder. The difference between rescuing a hurt human being or a hurt animals. In some cases the ratio is slightly higher when it comes to rescuing a human in pain over a hurt animal in pain.
Singer argument has presents a modus ponens in form, and the conclusion entitles (non-human) animals to be given the same amount of moral and consideration a human being is given. Peter Singer argument has represent a basic position that animals has primary rights. Although there has been hundreds of publication regarding this subject as well as dealing with implication and fundamental arguments. Singer argued about the result of extreme poverty and bad thing that happen to people, because they are unable to prevent they are morally poor people. Therefore since they are not able to completely support themselves the minimum standard are moral decency. Singer’s argues that all people deserve equal moral consideration for their interests, regardless of their sex, race or any other socio-economic status. We should not think suffering poor person is...