Peter+Singer

=**//Peter Singer //**=

[[image:Singer.jpg width="350" height="248" align="right"]]
“Plants exist for the sake of animals, and animals for the sake of man” (Singer, p. 56). This seems to be where we are at in our present culture. Before Singer makes his argument, he first unveils why we think what we do. Throughout history religion has always played a huge role in the development of our western culture, so it’s no surprise that religion has influenced our environmental ethic as well. Although our “indirect view” was rooted in Aristotle, Christianity adopted the belief that “the effects of our actions on nonhumans are morally significant only if they have consequences for humans”. (Singer, p. 55) This is to say that nonhumans have no moral weight and laws providing common rights to both could never exist. Amongst Aristotle and Christianity, other anthropocentric views such as Augustine, Aquinas, Pope Pious IX, Martin Luther, Kant and Francis Assisi hold similar views.

Singer has a compelling argument rights or equal moral considerability should be extended to animals. Singer bases his “equal consideration right” (pg 58) on the notion of sentience (ability to feel pleasure and pain). By rights, he is referring not to contractual rights, but to equal consideration of interests. “Speciesism” (pg57) is analogous to racism for it follows that it is arbitrary to claim that two individuals that are able to suffer have opposite moral consideration (one having it, while the other not). Both should have equal consideration because both have an interest in avoiding pain. Differences between individuals are not a reason to not extend equal consideration of interests. By interests, Singer refers to that which is conscious, has conscious preferences, and has subjective experience. Plants are thus excluded because they do not have subjective experience. (good and perhaps explain more directly his analogy of racism to speciesism)  Whereas suffering is counted equally, it does not follow that both have equal value to life. Humans typically suffer more when other humans die and more is lost when a human is killed because of their future projects (explain "future projects" here) . Hypothetically, if we had to choose between a dog with developed future preferences or a grossly mentally disabled infant (pg 58), which would we save? He takes a utilitarian approach when stating that other factors come into play such as: awareness of what is going to happen, family/friends who will suffer, and the potential for future happiness. These are factors that may not be able to be proven in favor for the dog, but should be considered. When approaching environmental ethics, one should do so in a complete utilitarian manner.  (ok, but now explain - based on the utilitiarian approach - (really PREFERENCE, not hedonistic, UTILITARIANISM - perhaps explain this difference as well and how it addresses the REPLACEABILITY problem) - how does he answer? dog or grossly mentally disabled infant?) - Good discussion overall here - ie, historical context of EE, sentience, etc.