Philosopher Peter Singer: Theres no reason to say humans have more worth or moral status than animals Animal welfare

They’re allies in the movement against factory farming, and a world of conscientious omnivores would produce much less meat and dairy products, with vastly less suffering. Effective Altruism may be helpful for fields that most people already acknowledge matter – human life, for example. And it may work in the field of basic animal welfare, within the framework of humans having the right to breed, own, and kill animals. Ratiocentrism has the plausible implication that if rational space aliens exist, they also deserve moral consideration.

Zugang zu EPLASS Professional

After consulting with lawyers, I decided not to appeal the court’s ruling, that my sexual harassment claim against Peter Singer had been filed beyond the statute of limitations. I learned that over 90 percent of appeals fail, and that a judge would need to commit a glaring mistake, as opposed to making a surprising but legally justifiable ruling, before a higher court would overrule. It was too risky and too expensive to proceed with an appeal while not knowing her thinking. The original claim was for $4 million, with the amended complaint increasing punitive damages after I learned, in 2022, that his behavior had not changed. Peter Singer, however, has said that animal experimentation is justified if the good done to others outweighs the harm inflicted on the animals, even making that point with regard to terminal primate research. While I acknowledge there may be reasonable people who agree, who should not be shouted down or shamed, especially given that they may currently be in the majority, I am sorry to see one of them trying to carry the torch for the animal liberation movement.
He believes rational thought has played a major role in expanding the moral circle over the centuries. Some go even further and argue that all living organisms deserve moral consideration.11 This view is biocentrism. I hear from people who tell me about his latest anti-animal liberation statement, thinking I might want to use it as ammunition to take him down, but I don’t. For 20 years I felt like I was covering for him, betraying myself, and betraying the women in our movement and the movement itself. Finally, when the horrible truth of our relationship was thrown in my face, I felt forced to stand for myself and the female activism experience.

A moral classification of animals

This was reminiscent of his demeaning the work of the brilliant pioneering activist, when, due to unhealed bad feeling between them, he denied her a chapter that was rightfully hers and handed it to a young activist he was sexually pursuing. That was profoundly professionally punishing, given his standing in the nonprofit world, and another act he omitted from his summary of the situation before the auditorium. He omitted that part as he summed up the issue to the San Francisco auditorium, surely calling into question the ethics professor’s honesty. Singer argues his infanticide stance logically, but it is likely to send chills up many spines.

Which animals deserve moral consideration?

9 I say “most” here because whether some animals (e.g., insects) are sentient is controversial, and others (e.g., bivalves) are widely thought not to be sentient. His conduct hurt me personally as I struggled to disentangle myself from our destructive relationship but was lured back, with my first ever Los Angeles Times piece being the bait he dangled. The three other guests were one of our movement’s most prominent leaders, a celebrity supporter, and a potential donor who had flown in for the meal. It was one of the most humiliating and professionally damaging nights of my life. When the editor asked whose byline should go first, Singer acknowledged privately to me that I had done the bulk of the work – twice – but said that because his name was more recognizable, the piece would be more widely read and thus larabet casino be better for animals if his went first.
It is unclear, however, what it takes to be potentially rational. But then Peter Singer is in no ethical position to discuss diet on behalf of our movement. It is probably impossible to be totally vegan in this society – car tires aren’t even vegan – so we must all draw our own lines. Eating animals, however, is well beyond the cheat level of most people who would consider themselves to be part of the animal rights movement. Yet in his most recent Guardian interview, Singer announces that he has no objection to eating oysters because he doesn’t think they can suffer. Examples like these complicate the Western narrative of moral progress.

Are Humans More Equal Than Other Animals? An Evolutionary Argument Against Exclusively Human Dignity

That is an important point because Peter Singer has publicly accused me of being untruthful. I hope that anybody who questions him will ask him to name any untruth in this essay or the lawsuit, for I am aware of none. The affair resumed, briefly, for what was one of the lowest points of my life. It took a toll, which eventually proved insurmountable, on my primary relationship with a man who had unreservedly supported me and my work for animals.
He walked out of the fundraising dinner at which he was the guest of honor, and during our next contact he quit the DawnWatch board. The “consent” is questioned in my complaint as it was achieved via deceit, with the married man attesting to an “arrangement” with his wife that did not exist, and his choosing not to reveal that I was becoming one of three current lovers other than his wife. The day I learned of the other women, I broke off our sexual relationship. I was lured back into his orbit a few months later, with the offer of a co-writing credit for a Los Angeles Times piece. That kind of professional pressure to achieve close contact also calls “consent” into question.

  • To him, that suggests animal rights advocates should push ahead with cage-free campaigns and other incremental reforms, because they’re unlikely to cause too much complacency, at least if certain conditions are met.
  • Defenders of speciesism argue that humans have a special rational nature that sets them apart from animals, but the problem is where that leaves infants and the profoundly intellectually disabled.
  • That was profoundly professionally punishing, given his standing in the nonprofit world, and another act he omitted from his summary of the situation before the auditorium.
  • Alternatively, if it is morally relevant (e.g., intelligence), then it probably isn’t something that all and only humans have.
  • Some activist movements have been more successful than others.
  • People care about animals, so we need not hide our concern for them while trying to save them using backdoor approaches.

But Singer quickly became so defensive and enraged that he used the c word in order to humiliate me, as he misrepresented an embarrassing event from our past. Then he walked out of the dinner, at which he was the guest of honor. Though Peter Singer eventually told me he had slept with about thirty women in our movement, my claim refers to just a few, whose lives, like mine, were profoundly damaged by their dealings with him.

Many factors enabled the moral circle to expand in the past

  • Animal lovers would say that all animals deserve moral consideration.
  • My annual turkey rescue has been covered on ABC Now, Fox Business News, and on every local Los Angeles Network.
  • On the phone after the hearing, Singer’s lawyer told me his plan to appear, uninvited, at a hearing two hours later, which forced me to wait around at the courthouse when I should have been working on my complaint.
  • But that initial suit included the same facts as those in the amended complaint, which rightly included Sexual Harassment.
  • 13 Biocentrists could, for example, draw a distinction between various kinds of interests and then argue that the satisfaction of certain kinds of interests (e.g., psychological interests) matters more than the satisfaction of other kinds of interests (e.g., biological interests).
  • How humanity’s idea of who deserves moral concern has grown — and will keep growing.
  • And I will call on one previously unknown to me, who I learned about from our movement’s lead feminists during my quest for legal representation for an appeal.

Malcolm Gladwell spells that out in The Tipping Point, a book all activists should read. The Effective Altruism movement urges funders to donate to charities that can prove how many animals they help. One of the top recommendations is a group that urges food companies to stop using eggs from hens in battery cages. That effort will surely help end that one hideous farming practice and ease some of the suffering of billions of animals. But those approaching the companies would have no success if other activists weren’t changing public opinion, pushing the envelope, and putting societal pressure on those companies to at least make some improvements. It’s worth noting that any choice of litmus test for inclusion in the circle is, to some degree, culturally determined.
Extreme forms of confinement also still dominate the US states with the most pigs and laying hens. Animal experimentation is now regulated in many developed nations, but what’s notable is how minimal it is in the US, where the vast majority of animals used in experiments aren’t covered. On animal sentience, we now have strong evidence that fish too can feel pain. There are also good reasons for thinking the same of some invertebrates – the octopus but also lobsters and crabs. How far sentience extends into other invertebrates is unclear.
The claim that all adult human beings deserve moral consideration has been denied throughout much (or most) of human history, but it is clear to us now that their reasons for doing so were not good ones. It is much better for the climate than meat from animals and for animal suffering. And while it is true that it still suggests that meat is desirable, there are people who are unwilling to make that switch to becoming vegan or vegetarian. The companies’ use of fetal bovine serum to develop their products is regrettable and I am pleased that many companies have found alternatives and stopped using it, but if there are no alternatives, its use can be justified. This case has been taxing, of course, but I could not continue to be silent with that silence tacitly covering for horrendous behavior.

Leave a Reply