All Animals Are Equal “…. The ethical principle of human equality requires that we extend “equal regard” to all animals. This principle (ECOI) states that when calculating the rightness or inequity of an action, it should be taken into account all of the affected interests. It is also a moral principle. This principle is extremely popular in animal ethics. Peter Singer, an Australian philosopher, first formulated it. The utilitarianism approach has made this principle a major part of other theories of animal ethics.
Singer claims that equality can be used to apply to women. However, I disagree with Singer’s argument that moral rights should be extended to animals. As sentient beings, we must consider animal welfare and current exploitation. I will discuss the difference between man and other nonhuman creatures and argue that equality in moral rights is not valid for assigning moral rights. Regan and Singer take up the principle that only the ability to suffer counts when determining moral rights. This was clearly stated by Jeremy Bentham in the prologue to Principles of Morals and Legislation. Unfair treatment is justifiable regardless of gender, skin color or intelligence. Moral rights cannot be assigned based on ability to suffer. But, we can assign moral rights according to other capacities. Singer would consider moral policymakers to be completely impartial when dealing with conflicts between human (kitten) or non-human (human). If Singer had to choose, social policy should favour a kitten. While this results is not consistent with ordinary commonsense, Singer does not consider ordinary commonsense to be an adequate guide. Singer’s position allows that humans have complex and rich interest that result from their complex mental lives. Nonhuman animals do not have correspondingly rich interests. Singer interprets the principle of equal consideration as allowing for legitimate preference for humans when animal and human interests are at conflict. Singer says that Singer can allow for human children to have an interest that is based on different capabilities. If Singer believes that a kitten cannot attain such a fine interest, then its satisfaction will be more important than that of other interests.
The principle that all species have equal rights is meaningless if we don’t accept the other specie interest. Singer argues that humans have the right to suffer, but that the animal have the right to enjoy pain. Singer also argues that preferences utilitarianism assumes that interests and desires are the same. What does it mean to be interested? Before considering each specie’s interest, it is necessary to be aware of their individual interests. “For example, why should someone have an interest to live if they don’t have any other interests?” Is it fair to place such an interest in life on top of all other interests? Similar considerations are applicable to liberty-related rights. : How can we assume that two persons have the same interest? This question must be answered by examining the basis for equality. The basis of equality in ECOI principles can be a feature or an attribute of an interest. It is also a barrier in the future to deciding any moral laws for animals.
Thomas Hobbes argues that human beings can be selfish and that rules and regulations should be made for rational beings. Also, we Humans can make moral laws about nonhumans. But if we try to treat nonhumans with compassion, then it seems reasonable. Listing nonhumans’ rights is impossible. Nonhumans cannot ask for theirs. Although we may be able to identify the signs and observe their behavior, it is not enough to help us deal with them. “Some animals can be the object of sentimental love. For example, you love your cat or dog. You may love your dog or cat, for example, even though they do not have rights.
Our society has progressed over time. We have observed many changes, where we can consider human capacities as the primary contribution to revolution. This was possible because of human ability to reason, which John Rawls describes in his A Theory of Justice. He suggests that a person with a higher level of moral personality than the threshold is entitled to equal moral rights as moral persons. He proposes that moral personality is defined as “a capacity to conceive of the good and to feel justice.” (dale writer). However, animals without reasons are allowed to do whatever they want.
A second aspect of language is communication. It is essential for communicating one’s thoughts and emotions to another being. Language skills are not available to nonhumans. However, humans in pain do have a developed vocabulary. Descartes stated that humans can share their pain experiences in great detail with each other, while other animals cannot.
However, pain can also be felt by non-human animals.
Finally, Man’s dominance over all other species is a fact. This is not a thought that humans advocate because they are Homo Sapiens members. But, in reality, these animals have been subjected to different experiments than human beings. We must agree to push for nonhuman animal rights expansion according to The principle or equal consideration of the interests. It is based in suffering. Their rights should be weighed against theirs. However, this is only true if the animal being experimented on is being given treatment. Nonhuman option sustainable will be chosen by the majority. This is not due to specialism. Singer responded, “If it is necessary to inflict injury or starve then we would choose the lesser of two evils.”
It would seem that the fact that plants suffer less is still true, and it would therefore be better for us to eat more plants than animals. But if equality is what we really want, equal consideration of rights and interests would not be difficult. Other preferences such as rationality and reasoning capabilities should also be taken into account. While we believe every living thing deserves a happy life, the fact that humans are at the top of the list of living beings isn’t due to specialism and domination of one species over another. Science, philosophy, and theology cannot refute this dominance.
Every human being has a basic moral right. All humans have the same basic moral status. The interests of all people should be considered equal in social policy calculations. These are commonplace beliefs. However, considering animals in terms of their potential to suffer is controversial. The weakness of “animal Liberation” is the neglect of other capacities. This is, I believe, total negation or denying of other capacities that makes it humanable to enjoy moral laws.
