1

Exploring Animal Equality

Daeira Naskari

Introduction to Academic Writing WP1010

Extended Critical Response

Dr. Maria Pirgerou

Word count: 1.443

 2

Exploring Animal Equality

The discussion about animal rights started in the 1970’s when many philosophers started

advocating on behalf of nonhuman animals. Since then, the debate has gained ground and

support as more well-known authors share their views. As more and more people enter the

discourse, opinions vary from animal rights activists to meat-eating supporters. Peter Singer laid

the foundational philosophical groundwork and was a major proponent for the animal rights

movement. In his introduction to the book Animals, Men and Morals by Stanley Godlovitch

(Tablinger Publishing Company 1972), Singer expresses a demand for equality and same rights

between humans and non-human animals based on a need for morality. Micheal Pollan published

a review on Singer’s book Animal Liberation, on November 10, 2002, in the New York Times,

under the title An Animal’s Place responding critically to Peter Singer’s arguments. Later,

Jonathan Safran Foer an American novelist recounted in his article Against Meat published on

October 11th, 2009, on the food issue of the newspaper The New York Times, his experience with

vegetarianism, and through his own perspective he addressed the issue of eating meat. Jay

Rayner in his review Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer, published on February 28, 2010,

in The Guardian, attacked Foer for his extreme views on meat-eating. In my paper, I will argue

that I partly agree with Singer’s views on animal rights, and I will support my argument using

Foer’s opinion and Rayner’s and Pollan’s reviews.

More specifically, Peter Singer, to support his primary position that animals are equal to

humans and therefore entitled to rights, begins by determining the factor that renders animals

worthy of consideration. He states, “the claim to equality does not depend on IQ” (1972, p.1),

that equality is not based on intelligence or the possession of other characteristics but simply on
 3

the fact that animals can suffer (“Can they suffer?”, 1972, p.1). He asserts that an animal’s

capacity to feel pain morally gives them the right not to suffer, and when it is certain that

suffering occurs there is no moral reasoning in disregarding it. In my opinion, this is a very

straightforward argument that is hard to dismiss, as there is no ethical rationale in subjecting

animals to pain with no hesitation or consideration. Micheal Pollan recognizes the strength of the

argument; he points out that “Equal consideration of interests is not the same as equal treatment.

But where their interests are the same, the principle of equality demands they receive the same

consideration. And the one all-important interest that we share with pigs, as with all sentient

creatures, is an interest in avoiding pain." explaining that nonhumans deserve to be considered

for the fact that they suffer. On the other hand, Foer does not make a clear moral request on why

people should stop eating meat, a point that Rayner criticizes. He argues, “Either you fully

identify with animals as equals, who are therefore deserving of our complete protection, or you

regard them as lesser and subservient, in which case – accepting their right to be spared cruelty –

it's OK to eat them.” (2010), contending that there must be an ethical or rational basis for a

strong opinion to be formed.

Moreover, Peter Singer introduces a new term, “speciesism”, first used by Richard Ryder.

The word speciesism, Singer explains, conveys the belief that members of one species are

entitled to treat members of another species in a way that would not be accepted within their own

species (1972, p.2). He labels animal experimentation as a form of speciesism for the sole benefit

of humans (1972, p.3). Singer provides a series of statistics and examples that demonstrate the

harsh experiments that animals are subjected to, and he characterizes this practice as a plain

discrimination at the expense of nonhumans. On the contrary, Foer states that animal

experimentation can be justified as it is beneficial for humans (2009, p.6). Similarly, Pollan does
 4

not entirely dismiss animal experimentation because of its use for the salvation of human life, “In

the case of animal testing, all but the most radical animal rightists are willing to balance the

human benefit against the cost to the animals.”, “The argument over animal testing is really in

the details: is this particular procedure or test really necessary to save human lives? (Very often

it’s not, in which case we probably should not do it.)” (2002). That is where I stand as well, as I

am not ready to put the value of the life of animals above that of humans. However, animal

experimenting must be performed only when necessary and in a humane way.

The final topic that Peter Singer refers to is meat-eating. He highlights that the greatest

form of speciesism is the use of other species for food because it conveys the notion that

nonhumans are utilities, a means to an end (1972, p.3). The extreme exploitation of animals

happens in factory farming, a practice that aims at the biggest possible outcome of eggs, meat or

milk with the least possible cost and labor. He provides a series of examples to illustrate the

inhumane conditions that animals are forced to live in, all cramped up and malnourished (1972,

p.4). Additionally, on the topic of factory farming, Foer criticizes it from a utilitarian

perspective. He asserts that “factory farming has made animal agriculture the No. 1 contributor

to global warming” (2009, p.5), addressing its consequences to the environment. He claims that

“Free range, cage free, “natural” and “organic” are nearly meaningless when it comes to animal

welfare” (2009, p.5), evaluating the procedures used for mass meat production and highlighting

the importance of animal welfare. Indeed, factory farming is one of the leading contributors to

climate change, causing deforestation, polluting the air, using a vast amount of freshwater, and

having great greenhouse gas emissions. What is more, from another perspective Rayner believes

that eliminating the consumption of meat is not feasible, “We should certainly eat less of it, and

we should be as humane as possible in weighing up the balance between nutritional need and
 5

animal suffering. We need to consider the environmental impacts, but we also need to think, in a

way Safran Foer never does, about the impact of cheaply available animal proteins upon the

mass population, rather than just the affluent middle-class portion of it”. He argues, when in the

debate of meat-eating we must consider its nutritional value, the environmental impact, but also

the mass population that depends on cheap meat for nutrition (2010). He also points out, relying

on the authority of Hugh Pennington, that the lack of meat can lead to malnourishment and

diseases such as tuberculosis. Finally, Micheal Pollan dismisses the inhumane practices of

factory farming. Nevertheless, he proposes a new way of production, the Polyface Farm, that is

driven using unconventional methods with the goal of "emotionally, economically and

environmentally enhancing agriculture" and welfare of animals. He asserts that a fully vegetarian

diet does not mean that animals are not killed (“Steve Davis, an animal scientist at Oregon State

University, has estimated that if America were to adopt a strictly vegetarian diet, the total

number of animals killed every year would increase, as animal pasture gave way to row crops. It

would appear that killing animals is unavoidable no matter what we choose to eat.”), but that

humans would rely even more on industries for food production increasing the impact on the

environment (“The vegetarian utopia would make us even more dependent than we already are

on an industrialized national food chain. That food chain would in turn be even more dependent

than it already is on fossil fuels and chemical fertilizer since food would need to travel farther,

and manure would be in short supply.”). Consequently, it seems that the elimination of meat

production has numerous disadvantages and is not possible, as most importantly it would lead to

the malnourishment of a great part of the world population. So, I would propose a new, more

humane way of farming, such as the Polyface Farms, that has proven effective. However, that
 6

would lead to an increase in the price of meat, but I think that is a challenge that we must face in

order to eat animals with the consciousness and the respect they deserve.

Ultimately, the existence of a discourse on animal rights is of paramount importance, as

animals cannot defend themselves and are treated in monstrous ways. However, our society is

not ready to treat animals as equals and grant them rights. There must be an organized effort to

improve the conditions of farming and experimenting to minimize animal suffering.

 7

Resources

Foer, J.S. (2009, October 11). Against meat. The Food Issue in The New York Times.

http://nytimes.com/2009/10/11/magazine/11.foer-t.html_...

Rayner, J. (2010, February 28). Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer. The Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/feb/28/eating-animals-jonathan-safran-foer

Pollan, M. (2002, November 10). An Animal’s Place in The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/10/magazine/an-animal-s-place.html

Singer, P. (1972). Animal Liberation. Introduction to Animals, Men and Morals by Stanley

Godlovitch (pp. 1-5). Tablinger.