Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Summary of Ethics 2 - English
Summary of Ethics 2 - English
Summary of Ethics 2 - English
FACULTAD DE TEOLOGA
ANIMAL LIBERATION
SUMMARY
PRESENTED PURSUANT TO
CHRISTIAN ETHICS
GROUP 1
BY
AA, LIMA
JUNE 2017
SUMMARY
movement by arguing that it is not the IQ, nor the ratiocination that determines the right
to equality, but the capacity to suffer. In that sense, Singer shows that the suffering of
Accordingly, Singer refutes the two main arguments holding that animals do not
suffer. Firstly, the inability to speak does not exclude the sensibility to suffer. Singer
(based on Jane Goodall's article in Animals, Men and Morals) shows that chimpanzees
express basic emotions such as pain, fear, and sexual arousal in ways similar to humans,
which is why there is no reason to believe that a being without language can not suffer.
Secondly, the fact that pain can not be verbally expressed does not mean that pain is not
present. Singer states that the biological behavioral signals of animals are similar to ours
and, as a result, they also suffer. Otherwise, infants or some elders unable to use language
The two suppositions refuted above are characteristic of the attitude that Singer
calls "speciesism" (citing Richard Ryder). The logic of this attitude is demonstrated by
carried out on animals are not only used in medicine, but are part of forensic and
psychological studies, among others. Thus, Singer asserts that vivisection practitioners
are wrong to ask, is it better to let thousands of people die if they can be saved by the
experiment done on an animal? The answer would be another question: could you
experiment with an orphan child of less than six months if this was the only way to save
many lives? In this regard, Singer concludes that human children share - at the same or
even lower level - the same characteristics as adult mammals. In this way, speciesism
At the heart of this attitude towards animals, Singer argues, is the use of them for
food, as evidenced by industrial farming. Singer mentions the failed control campaign by
Britain to contrast its proposals with the reality of industrial farming. Thus, while the
environments and the good feeding, the procedures of the industrial farming radically
Finally, since the issue of industrial farming concerns every person, Singer refutes
the arguments of two groups: the defenders of industrial farming and habitual readers.
The first group states that, since the animals know nothing else, they do not suffer.
However, not all behavior has to be learned, as observed in the activities that the chicks
perform without having lived in the conditions necessary for doing so. In addition, it is
said that industrial farming is necessary to provide sufficient protein to the population,
vegetables.
The second group states that there is nothing wrong with raising animals for food
provided that they are killed humanely. Against this position, Singer asserts (citing
Roslind Godlovitch) that the mixture between the idea of "animal suffering should be
avoided" with the idea of "there is nothing wrong with killing animals", would result in
the annihilation of all animals. Avoiding suffering does not automatically justify murder,
as in the case of the euthanasia alluded by Singer. In addition, Singer asserts that raising
animals to kill them humanely is the same as considering them to be means rather than
ends in themselves. For this reason, attempts for make animals live and die without
behavior towards those who can not claim for their rights. This would require a profound
change in their comportment and lifestyle. In this way, the challenge is in force and the
sufrir. En ese sentido, Singer muestra que el sufrimiento de cada ser humano o no
Bajo esta perspectiva, Singer refuta los dos principales argumentos que sostienen
and Morals) muestra que los chimpancs expresan emociones bsicas como dolor, temor
y excitacin sexual en formas similares a las de los seres humanos, razn por la cual no
habra razn para creer que un ser sin lenguaje no puede sufrir. En segundo lugar, el
hecho de que no se pueda expresar verbalmente el dolor no quiere decir que este no est
presente. Singer afirma que las seales conductuales biolgicas de los animales son
al sufrimiento.
demuestra por medio de los experimentos realizados sobre seres no humanos para
beneficiar a los humanos. Los millones de experimentos realizados sobre animales no
psicolgicos, entre otros. Siendo as, Singer afirma que los practicantes de la viviseccin
se equivocan al preguntar es mejor que dejar morir a miles de personas si ellas pueden
ser salvadas por el experimento hecho sobre un animal? La respuesta sera otra
esta fuera la nica manera de salvar muchas vidas? Ante esta cuestin, Singer concluye
que los nios humanos comparten en igual o incluso menor nivel las mismas
caractersticas que los mamferos adultos. De este modo, el especiecismo manifiesta una
En el corazn de esta actitud hacia los animales, aduce Singer, est la utilizacin
de ellos para comida, tal como se evidencia en la cra industrial. Singer menciona la
fallida campaa de control realizada por Gran Bretaa para contrastar sus propuestas con
la realidad de la cra industrial. As, mientras que los ideales de tal campaa promovan la
Por ltimo, puesto que el asunto de la cra industrial concierne a toda persona,
Singer refuta los argumentos de dos grupos: los defensores de la cra industrial y los
lectores habituales. El primer grupo afirma que, siendo que los animales no saben nada
ms, ellos no sufren. No obstante, no toda conducta tiene que ser aprendida, tal como se
observa en las actividades que los polluelos realizan sin haber vivido en las condiciones
necesarias para ello. Adems, se dice que la cra industrial es necesaria para proveer
suficiente protena a la poblacin, sin considerar que es posible producir mucha ms
El segundo grupo afirma que no hay nada malo en criar animales para comida
siempre que se los mate humanitariamente. Contra esta posicin, Singer asevera (citando
a Roslind Godlovitch) que la mezcla entre la idea de el sufrimiento animal debe ser
evitado con la idea de no hay nada malo en matar animales, tendra como
mismo que considerar que ellos son medios en lugar de fines en s mismos. Por esta
razn, los intentos por hacer que los animales vivan y mueran sin sufrir sera una
un conflicto de intereses, en el cual los seres humanos son llamados a demostrar una
conducta altruista hacia aquellos que no pueden reclamar por sus derechos. Esto
est vigente y la interrogante es acuciante ser el hombre capaz de tal altruismo? Quin
sabe?