Brenda Mills2. A211 Philosophy and the human situation.

TMA 3

Does Mary Midgley show that Peter Singer is wrong about speciesism?

Are radical animal liberationist and philosopher Peter Singers views, that speciesism
is akin to racism, true? We will discover this by defining what speciesism is, explore
Singers stance, and then contrast this by examining moderate animal rights activist
Mary Midgley’s views on the issues. This may ascertain whether she shows or does
not show that Peter Singer views on speciesism are wrong. Finally, conclude with a
critical analysis on both perspectives by putting forward my own position.

Speciesism is a term originally coined by animal liberationist Richard Ryder in 1970

(Reading 1 p211.p1). The word refers to a form of prejudice akin to racism and sexism
in the sense that it is a partiality which discriminates between the welfare of one
group at the expense of another. In the case of speciesism: “a prejudice or bias in
favour of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of
members of other species” (Peter Singer, Animal Liberation, 1975).

The basic moral principle of equal consideration of interest implies that our concern
for others ought not to depend on what they are like, or what abilities they possess
(Singer, p4 pp211). This was expanded upon by Jeremy Bentham (founder of modern
utilitarianism) to include non humans when he states “The question is not, Can they
reason? Nor can they talk? But, Can they suffer?” (Reading 1, p1 pp211) A view
endorsed and clarified by Singer, when he emphasises that it is the capacity of
suffering, which is the vital characteristic that entitles non-human animals’ equal
consideration.

And furthermore just because beings are not members of our species does not
entitle us to exploit them and because other animals are less intelligent than
humans, this does not mean their interests can be disregarded (Singer, p4 pp211).

This extension of concern for other humans to non human animals a logical
deduction for Singer giving Bentham’s view "The greatest good for the greatest
number of people"

Thus, logically, we must extend this

principle to animals once we
Brenda Mills2. A211 Philosophy and the human situation. TMA 3

acknowledge that they can suffer. Singer

adopts ‘negative utilitarianism’: that we
should minimise suffering.

We should give equal consideration to suffering of

animals (principle of equality2extended to
animals).

P3: Animal suffering is involved in enabling us

to eat meat.

And I think it's sentience that he says is the only defensible limit to equal consideration.

position is also too simplistic,

Of course, in practice most of us are speciesist: we eat animals but not humans; we buy pets and
keep them locked up in cages; we support animal experimentation in order to save human lives. But
increasingly these distinctions lack moral justification. It's time we developed a more human-centred
morality, to provide our practical judgements with intellectual support.