Animals' Equality
Noel Jolivet
PHI 103 Informal Logic
Instructor. Christopher Meyers
February 23, 2015

When reflecting on equality we normally conjure up thoughts about human beings whether the issue may be one of race, gender, or creed. Animals other than humans are rarely referred to as having rights, and to many it may seem unusual for us to contemplate any animal other than human beings having equivalence on par to the treatment of humans. It is however a debatable issue in which to view animals with relevant equal rights to a human and one in which Peter Singer proposes the classical ethical theory utilitarian as stated by Mosser (2013) "A natural way to see whether an act is the right thing to do (or the wrong thing to do) is to look at its results, or consequences. Utilitarianism argues that, given a set of choices, the act we should choose is that which produces the best results for the greatest number affected by that choice." This supports the position for the defense of why animals other than humans should have our relevant equal rights. While non-human animals are not equal in intellectual and brain capacity and therefore should not be allowed equal human rights, animals other than human beings should have the same rights as humans when these rights are relevant to animals. Ethically it is wrong to mistreat animals, as animals can literally feel the same way as humans, and often endure unbearable suffering at the hands of humans. Peter Singer argues that animals have the same ability to feel pain as any human beings. To paraphrase Caplan (2005) he describes one of Singer's premises on the issues as a logical stand for giving moral rights to animals on the basis of their ability to suffer and capacity, as with humans, to feel pain. Singer continues to support his argument with reflections of moral obligations associated with fellow human beings as Singer (1989) explains to us "Many philosophers have proposed the principle of equal consideration of interests, in some form or other, as a basic moral principle." Singer continues associating these principles with respect to animals "The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been witholden from them but by the hand of tyranny." Therefore we may rationalize that Singer concludes to restrict animal research around the globe and completely halt factory farming by providing relevant equal rights to all non human animals. Consequently animals can feel pain and endure suffering at the hands of humans and this suffering should not occur. The argument presented by Singer is in nature both deductive and inductive. We certainly know that animals, as with humans, feel pain and therefore should not endure suffering. This is however an opinion and not a truth per say; we can see great support to this particular argument in Singer's given reasons greatly strengthening this conclusion. As human beings we are essentially the apex being, able to act with morals, respect, and logical understanding. This alone should govern us to not reserve our moral and ethical judgment to human beings only; these traits that we reflect on making us ethical, should extend to non human animals as well. We can also conclude that factory farming causes suffering to animals. This is a truth and fact and therefore a deductive part of Singer's argument. The argument is sound as the practices surrounding factory farming could certainly be considered torturous and are certainly beyond abusive as stated by Balik (2005)"Not only is factory farming damaging human health, it also is a haven for animal abuse. Egg-laying chickens have parts of their beaks cut off without anesthesia." To continue to paraphrase Balik, the cages holding most livestock including these birds, are so small the animals don't have a choice to turn around. They are essentially being tortured in one space their entire lives only catching a new