Counter Objecting “All Animals Are Equal” by Peter Singer

Outline

In his article “All Animals are Equal,” Peter Singer argues that the need to treat all animals equally like humans is vital and that experimenters should experiment on mentally disabled persons or orphaned infants instead of using animals. He says this is because the humans proposed have no intellectual ability as adult animals.

I argue herein that mentally disabled persons are of much value, given the possibility of being treated and productive. Similarly, an orphaned infant would grow with time to be the intellectual we know of all humans.

There is no doubt Singer would object by saying a mentally disabled person has no clear reasoning and can harm anybody at any time. That would be true to an extent. However, it is certain the number of wild animals that are likely to harm different species on this planet is comparatively higher.

Animals Should be Used for Experiments Instead of Persons with Mental Disabilities or Orphaned Infants: Counter Objecting “All Animals Are Equal” by Peter Singer

Over the years, the fight for justice and equality has been on the rise ranging from the fights for gender equality to fights against racial discrimination. On the contrary, there has been speciesism, as per Peter Singer’s book “All Animals are Equal” (1989). This is where human beings consider other humans but do not treat other species equally as they treat each other. This essay argues against his view of experimenters’ need to do experiments on orphaned infants and mentally disabled persons instead of adult animals. The essay suggests that animals are better to be used for such and explains a possible future objection to the opinion herein in the possibility of mentally disabled persons posing threats of harming the human population.

In his book, Singer notes that most research is initially carried out on animals to see the harmlessness of a vaccine. He proposes an alternative to experimenters; instead, the latter should research and test vaccines on persons with a mental disability or orphaned infants. His reason for hypothesizing an orphaned infant is to avoid complications of parental emotional suffering; even so, he opines this is being overly fair to the experimenters who use animals for their experiments. He argues this is so given that even the animals have parents. Peter Singer argues that a human infant does not possess what an adult animal has as regards intellectual ability and reason; perhaps this is arguable.

However, Singer is too broad in his argument, implying that animals should be treated equally by all humans as they treat each other. The proposal that scientific experimenters should use an orphaned infant instead of animals is insensitive to the fact that human beings are the most intelligent animal species on planet earth. As much as animals feel pain just like humans, the intelligence help a human being would offer on earth is far more significant than an animal can. It is, therefore very much essential to save as much human life as possible as opposed to animals’ lives. An orphaned infant would, for instance, be of much value in technological advancements, etcetera, once they develop into mature people.

Additionally, it is essential to note that due to human intelligence, the emotional connection of a human being with another is more robust than it would be between a human and an animal. This explains Peter Singer’s speciesism in his argumentative “All Animals are Equal.” A more straightforward explanation, when narrowed down to the human species, is that there is a very high likelihood that family members will support one another in a challenging situation. If, for instance, a family member is engaged in a battle with a non-family member, the blood and emotional connection would compel one to support their fellow family member instead of the non-family member. Contrary to what Singer proposes, a person with a mental disability is way more valuable than animals in the sense that mental disability can be treated, and the person can become very productive once again.

There is a possibility of a future objection to the opinion herein, like the argument that experimenters should use people with mental disabilities to experiment instead of animals, given that such people can be very harmful to society and can harm anybody at any time. Such an objection would be suppressed by the argument that most animals are, in fact, very much more harmful, and they are in vast numbers as opposed to humans with mental disabilities. Such include dangerous snakes, sharks, wild dogs, and many other wild animals.

In conclusion, as much as there is a need to reduce the cruelty of humans to non-humans, it is worth noting that human life is more precious, and when compared to animal life, there is a higher need to save as many human lives as possible. Additionally, not all animals are friendly; most are hostile, and treating them equally to humans is arguably nearly impossible.

Reference

Singer, Peter (1989). All Animals Are Equal. In Tom Regan & Peter Singer (eds.), _Animal Rights and Human Obligations_. Oxford University Press. pp. 215–226.