All Animals are Equal - Peter Singer Summary
This is ‘All Animals are Equal’ Peter Singer summary paper in which this assessment and examination of different forms of discrimination among the human race for ages is discussed. Some sections of society take it upon themselves to devise systems for selective treatment of other groups by manipulative control and have found voices of opposition in recent years.
Peter Singer examines the reaction from these oppressed groups beginning with the Civil Rights Movement involving African-Americans, who found a strong voice in the middle of the Twentieth Century and have continued to exert themselves in all ways. The rise of the Civil Rights movement, he observes, has led to the fight for recognition of women's rights, Latino rights, and to other segments of society which initially were a minority. Gay and Lesbian members of the community, for example, have recently actively campaigned for recognition and freedom from prosecution that had previously haunted their numbers.
Of the groups that have been discriminated against, women were already a majority but continued to suffer harsh treatment from their male equivalents. Even in more advanced western societies, the place of women had, until recently, been referred to as the backroom. Taking advantage of the relative success of the African-American activism, women in many western societies began to assert themselves more strongly and raise their voice against centuries-old discrimination in the home, in education or academia, and most importantly at work.
Peter Singer relates the mentality of discrimination to human attitudes, which assume that they are better than their equivalents who belong to the other gender, race, social class or ethnicity. For this reason, people try to project their grouping as the superior and therefore try to place themselves a few rungs above the rest. Alternatively, they try to take the other group down to maintain the status quo. This assessment is quite remarkable in identifying the root cause of some of the long-running cases of prejudice around the world.
The discrimination against women based on their gender, for example, confirms the analogy that attitude is key in starting most forms of discrimination. Equally, the cases of racial profiling and segregation come down to positions which refuse equal opportunities for people of all races. When one group seeks to have an advantage over the others, with the perception that theirs is the better group, it is because of a poor attitude.
Singer passionately argues against the establishment of a hierarchical society based on perceptions of racial superiority. It has been proven that there is no valid difference between, for example, the whites and blacks concerning capability. It is a matter of social engineering and financial misappropriation that some parts of the world are more developed than others, and not because of intellectual incompetence.
Peter Singer delves deeper into the reasons for his position on the invalidity of the basis and justification of most forms of discrimination. Arguments justifying racial prejudice on the basis of capability between whites and blacks, or between men and women lack in any substance. The author states further that these are not the only reasons for his objection to discrimination, or to the outcome of any other scientific investigation for that matter.
The prevailing message from Peter Singer seems to be that, there should be no basis for any form of discrimination to humans. His idea is that being human on its own is a reason good enough to stop all forms of discrimination against any group of humans. Therefore, equality as a practice should be a standard measure that humans should be granted regardless of their racial or ethnic background, gender, sexual orientation or economic status. The level of intelligence, whether stemming from observed environmental conditions or genetic formation is not in any way a ground for discrimination either. He asserts that no scientific research or investigation has warranted race or gender with any essential influence on human intelligence.
Singer states that equality should be projected as a fundamental moral ideal which every human should be allowed access to. Consideration should instead focus on their interests or need and not necessarily their capability, which is subjective. Emphasizing individual benefits takes away the power of another human to try to determine what in his or her opinion best defines what another person should have or not have.
In the discriminatory setup that we have in our societies, some people have granted themselves the power to allocate opportunities, and the resources that go with it. This is where their ability to control resources stems from, and it results in manipulation. When somebody uses the same influence for unfair allocation of opportunities and resources, it unintentionally leads to discrimination. When they abuse power with the aim of giving more to one group while taking from the other, the seeds of exploitation are sown.
However, the author uses the same argument to vouch for equal treatment of animals by humans, suggesting that the same principle should be applied. He states that since it is generally agreed that no form of discrimination should take place on any living creature, animals should be treated just like we expect to treat humans. Having acknowledged that we should not use any random measures to decide what one person gets or doesn't get, he insists that it wouldn't be appropriate to treat animals any different.
I find this statement flawed because unlike humans, animals have little or no capacity to reason and express what they want. Some research has suggested that animals exhibit subtle reasoning in the event they are presented with opposing choices. How far this reasoning can go is subject to debate since most of the cases involved in such research work involved animals that were trained by humans. Therefore, it can be suggested that left on their own, animals wouldn't be in a position to reason. They may demonstrate a basic form of choice, but it is doubtful that these instances would be due to reasoning that eventually lead to the selection.
In the absence of such proof of reasoning, it would be bizarre to suggest that animals should be given similar or equal treatment and consideration by humans. Nature provides some evidence of the existence of a hierarchy which places the animals below humans, and plants below animals. This order is determined by core characteristics which are unchangeable according to species. Besides, if animals would demonstrate their reasoning skills in making choices, how would they communicate their preferences and interests, so that they can be given similar considerations?
Humans are exceptional in that after identifying their interests, they are able to express their interest and make known their preferences. Therefore, it would be easy to distribute them resources according to a similar standard. Besides, humans can sufficiently take care of their themselves without the direction of another living thing. Animals, except for those that live in colonies, rely on instincts for their survival. Tame animals that live in the domestic set-up rely on their keepers for feeding, which confirms that they cannot be left to take care of themselves without support.
Where humans give support to animals by feeding, for example, they are displaying some form of control to maintain the coexistence. Moreover, some animals form part of human food sources, implying that humans will need to stop eating animal meat to preserve their lives and fulfill the requirement of equal treatment. Although humans may quit eating animal meat should there be a need, would the same not be expected of predators in the jungle where their only means of survival is eating the prey?
The argument put forward by Singer assumes that giving equal consideration to all living creatures is the truest claim to non-discrimination, but I believe it wouldn't be practically sensible. In the absence of a similar sense of responsibility on the part of the creature that it has been placed, it would be farfetched to give equal consideration. To override this position, Singer suggests that our emphasis should be on whether a given act will cause suffering to the animal and not their ability to reason.
Peter Singer develops his theory of equal consideration further for humans and non-humans alike to achieve what he refers as to standard equality among species. However, it would be important to note that there is no particular reason why he chooses to consider only animals among the non-humans. In considering non-humans, he should have included plants as well. His argument that consideration should be based on the capability of these species opens the debate to more controversy by wondering why plant species were not part of his attention.
An equally important point to ask about the author's assertion is how he envisions managing the process of equal consideration among the animal species. Human beings have a way of governing their affairs to create checks against any mistreatment contrary to the rules. Animals or non-humans do not possess an understanding of standards and expectations. If we expect to implement equal rights to non-humans, then we need to consider that the non-humans will need to practice equal consideration among themselves.
It is a valid consideration, for example, that if humans should consider avoiding eating animal meat as part of their food, then animals should also be restrained from eating one another. Considering all species should have equal rights, then animals too should not eat plants because that causes harm to the plants in the long run. Singer argues that humans are capable of getting sustainable levels of proteins from some vegetables and legumes as opposed to meat. Shouldn't the animals also be stopped from eating their species and learn to eat plants?
It is a valid point to state that equality should be incorporated into every aspect of human life and socio-economic interactions. It’s also a valid point to practice equality among humans in all aspects of life as it is essential to peaceful coexistence. It is possible to establish restrictions that would stop the exploitation of animals and human-induced suffering among them. However, we must also set reasonable limits to how far we can take the activism for equality, particularly touching on non-humans.
