Singer is analyzing/ reviewing “Animals, Me and Morals. ” He is against the exploitation of animals or nonhumans. Currently we are discriminating against animals just because we “CANNOT” tell that they are in pain. We have animals undergo these horrible experiments for the sake of science just because they are beneath us in every way. Singer uses both pathos and logos to get the reader’s attention. Singer wrote an overall good analysis because he did have authoritative evidence, and he did state both the arguments and the counterarguments, though he did rely too much on emotion.
Singer also makes two major points which are communication and pain. Singer did well in bringing in the experts. In bringing them up he not only added credibility to his essay, but he also got your attention. By getting your attention I mean that people always look when you see an expert anywhere. People stop to listen to them think about it and then judge them. Singer brings in Jeremy Bentham, he is a moral philosopher. Bentham says “The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? ” When he uses Bentham he ensnares your attention and you can’t wait to see what he thinks.
Singer then brings in Michael Peters saying “…basic signals we use to convey pain, fear, sexual arousal, and so on are not specific to our species. ” Those two quotes show that we are no different in showing pain than non- humans, therefore bringing up a valid point. Singer also relates to the people who prefer hard core facts. He comes up with documentation of what happens during the experiments. He also has other experts for example how he brings in Chomsky. Chomsky is a professor of Linguistics and the author of “Language and Mind”. Another specialists Singer brings in is Jane Goodall.
The Essay on Animal Rights Animals Pain Human
Phil. Ethics Animal Rights The question of animal rights is one that people have been debating heavily since the sixties. In the beginning it was thought that animals had no intelligence what so ever therefore we have no responsibilities towards them. Traditional philosophers, such as Aquinas, Descartes, Malebranche, and Kant, defended the view that our obligations toward animals are only ...
She studies chimpanzees and she points out that we have the same forms of physical/ nonlinguistic communication with apes. She says that we “a cheering pat on the back, an exuberant embrace, a clasp of hands, and so on. ” By Singer bringing up this study by Goodall he is showing you that humans and apes are no different in how we react to certain situations. One of his most compelling points to me was the fact that he brought up direct communication. Singer argues that just because they can’t communicate with us directly, that they can communicate with us physically i. e.
Screaming, convulsing, and yipping. Etc. Singer uses very good research in showing how the animals or nonhumans are showing that they are suffering for the sake of science. “At the National Institute for Medical Research,… injected chemicals into the brains of cats… Retching, vomiting, defecation, … ” This shows that in science experimentation the animals do suffer, but just not in our language. Communication is just an exchange of information. He also brings up on how humans justify that the animals aren’t human and don’t qualify for the rights of a human because of their IQ.
This is a really fine example because we do have less than smart humans, so basically we as superiors have the right to experiment on less than smart humans, because they don’t meet the IQ? Singer mainly basis his essay on emotion. The emotion strategy is good, but there are people who would prefer hard core facts rather than emotion. Singer uses pathos by telling you how the animals are suffering. He is trying to get to sympathize with the animals being harmed for science while they were just innocent animals.
He then tells you how they scream, he tells you how their body reacts violently to the experiments done to them, or they just die a painful death. I liked the fact that in the third to last paragraph he brings up points that are up for discussion, but did not bring up. I did not like the fact that he relied too much on the pain aspect of it. He zeroed in too much on his target audience that he kind of skipped trying to convince the fact people. Aside from all that he did a pretty good job at defending his argument.
The Essay on Animal Rights Non Human Animals
Non-human animals are given rights only because of their interactions with human beings. Without involvement with humans, animals do not deserve rights. It is through this interaction with humans that animals are even given moral consideration. We do not give rights to a rock simply because it is a creation of Mother Nature, similarly non-human animals do not have rights unless it is in regards to ...
