Critical Assessment on Peter Singer’s Animal Rights

소개글

Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation 책에 대한 반박 글 (critical assessment) 리포트입니다
동물권리가 인권과 같다는 주장에 대한 총 5가지 반박이 들어있습니다.
그냥 동물권리와 관련되는 디베이트에도 참고자료가 될수있습니다.

목차

없음

본문내용

One of the biggest central debates in ethical history that has no definite answer is whether animals should be considered to have morally equal rights to humans or not. Peter Singer, as one of the prominent defenders of animal rights, provides sufficient evidences and arguments in his book of Animal Liberation, to reach a conclusion that animal’s pain should be valued equally to human’s pain as long as it has the capacity of suffering like that of humans. In this essay, I will be focusing on Singer’s defensive arguments toward animal rights and present his logical fallacies by pointing out one of his contradictory premises.
Singer assumes that moral is actions that reduce pain. Moreover, Singer considers morality as universal, and assumes it has to be applied to everything as long as the subject is capable of suffering. These assumptions are based on the premise that within humanity it is morally wrong to inflict pain on humans for pleasure when the inflictor is well aware of victim’s capability to feel pain just like himself.
Under perfectly reasonable premises, Singer scientifically proves that animals have the ability to perceive pain just like humans, as animals have nervous systems very like humans, which respond physiologically as humans do when the animal is in circumstances in which human would feel pain. Also, Singer claims that there is no philosophical counterargument that animals do not have the ability to express pain because behavioral acts can outweigh the importance of communication when one expresses pain;

참고 자료

Peter Singers Animal Liberation