Equality of Animals through Moral Consideration
Have you ever sneaked your dog a bite of bacon during breakfast? If you have, according to philosopher Peter Singer, you may be participating in speciesism. Speciesism is the assignment of different values, rights, or special consideration to individuals solely on the basis of their species membership. In his paper titled All Animals are Equal, Singer makes a claim that the basis of moral equality has to do with equal moral consideration and not necessarily similar treatment. The question at hand is whether, based on this claim, it is morally wrong to eat pork. Based on the idea of moral consideration, I believe it to be morally wrong to eat pork. It is wrong to eat pork because it violates animal interests and it involves taking part in speciesism.
In basic terms, moral consideration is essentially giving careful thought to doing the right thing. Peter Singer claims that equality between animals and human animals is justifiable by basing the equality on moral consideration. Once moral understanding is understood, there is no reason to say that animals don’t have the same interests as humans do. Equality between humans and non-human animals doesn’t require sameness of said rights granted to both groups. It shouldn’t necessarily be considered how humans and animals are factually different or the same. Equality requires equal treatment regardless of factual similarities or differences. Equality in relation to moral consideration means treating both animals and non-human animals the same in respect to what both groups are capable of. Peter Singer explains this when he says, “Women have a right to vote … because they are just as capable of making rational decisions as men are; dogs … are incapable of understanding the significance of voting, so they cannot have the right to vote.” (Singer 4). It is known that animals do not have the capacity to understand voting and what it means, so why would they need that right? Just as women have the right to an abortion and men do not because men are not physiologically capable of having one. In relation to this idea, Singer says, “Since a pig can’t vote, it is meaningless to talk of its right to vote. … The extension of the basic principle of equality from one group to another does not imply that we must treat both groups in exactly the same way, or grant exactly the rights to both groups.” (Singer 4). Basically, the interests of one group do not count any more than the interests of another, regardless of the limitations in factual equality between the groups.
The respecting of the interests of non-human animals as we respect our own, is giving non-human animals the same consideration as we do ourselves. “The basic principle of equality … is equality of consideration; and equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights.” (Singer 4). Singer is not saying that humans and non-human animals should both have the same rights in order to be entirely equal. What he is saying is that equality between both groups is based on the consideration of the interests of either group considering the extent of the limitations of their capabilities. It would be silly to give animals the right to an abortion, simply because abortions are beyond the scope of their needs, but it would not be silly to give animals the right to live freely and without fear of pain or being slaughtered. What gives animals the right to equal and moral consideration is what makes them sentient; their ability to feel and to suffer. As Singer put it, “… the capacity for suffering [is] the vital characteristic that gives a being the right to equal consideration.” (Singer 7). Animals deserve moral consideration because they are capable of suffering just as we are. The equality between animals and humans is about moral consideration because we know the ways in which humans and animals are both different and the same. The area in which animals are deserving of equality of consideration is the area in which humans and animals share similarities, such as our abilities to feel and to suffer.
Based on Singer’s claim that equality between humans and animals is about moral consideration and not the factual differences between the two, I find it to be morally wrong to eat pork. I believe this on the basis of eating pork to be a violation of animal interests. When Singer talks about animal rights, what he means by that is the interests of the animals themselves. Even when taking into consideration the most humane forms of keeping and slaughtering animals for food (i.e. “free range” chickens), the most basic interest of all animals is always violated. This interest being the want to continue living. Modern agricultural practices violate many of such interests of animals. These interests being wanting the ability the to make choices freely, eat a natural diet, and to live a life of community that is normal to its species, among others. Animals that are being raised and killed for food aren’t respected as individuals, instead they are treated as a means to human ends rather than an end in itself.
I also consider the consuming of pork to be morally wrong on the basis of speciesism in respect to Singer’s claims about equality and moral consideration. Singer relates the unjustifiable different treatment of humans to that of the unfair treatment of animals when he says, “If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit non-humans?” (Singer 7). Just because humans may be considered as more intelligent than non-human animals, that does not give us the right to use them as a means to acquire food. By using only certain animals for food, we also take part in speciesism in another way. Speciesism is defined as giving different consideration to different groups solely based on their species membership. This is done when people keep dogs as house pets while still buying pork to eat around the dining table. Singer explains this by saying, “Pigs are now also being reared in cages inside sheds. These animals are comparable to dogs in intelligence, and need a varied, stimulating environment if they are not to suffer from stress and boredom. Anyone who has kept a dog in the way in which pigs are frequently kept would be liable to prosecution …” (Singer 9). Eating pork can be considered morally wrong simply by the way in which we treat other animals. By assigning different values to separate species, humans are taking part in speciesism in this way. By deciding to keep some animals as pets, to let some live freely in nature, and then to raise others for the purpose of eating them humans are acting immorally. To decide to eat one species over another makes eating one inherently wrong.
A counter to the idea of stopping eating animals as food would be the lack of difference that one person can make. Surely one person becoming a vegetarian won’t alter the current processes of raising and killing animals for food, right? What’s wrong with this statement is that someone who takes part in the system is approving of what the industry does to the animals, and it is still morally wrong to take part in incorrect acts even it if it is indirectly. If something is morally wrong, then the morally right person would not do it. Someone who eats animals raised in this way is not acting in a virtuous manner and is exhibiting unmoral behavior, regardless of whether they can have an ability on those who choose to raise and slaughter animals for food.