Animal Liberation and Their Moral Status Essay

beam of light vocaliser, author of the highly revered record handwriting entitle Animal Liberation, caused quite a stir when he released this throw in 1975. Considered by some as the Bible of cr feed inure even outs, the book aimed to halt the abuse that a lot of inhuman brutes were experiencing at the set down of human creations. This would include the use of beasts for essayation, as well as the utilisation of beasts as part of our everyday meals. The book made it a sign to emphasize the fact that majority of the humans are taking attain of animals, and tr take them with disregard and without any form of consideration whatsoever.Many people credit the effectiveness of vocalizers book for the sudden burst of animal rights into the mainstream of issues surrounding society. No doubt, his views on animal rights has had a signifi cigarett mildew in the past. Alex Pacheco helped found People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), after see Singers book. And man y people serene use his book as a reference when discussing the rights of animals (Internal Vegetation Union, 2006).Even so, Singers s fling offs as a messenger cant alvirtuoso apologize how concern about the status and treatment of animals has moved into the mainstream of public insurance policy discussions. Master communicator though he be, the culture had to be ready for his message. It had been fain by several factors, among them the civil rights, peace and womens movements and the apparent ill luck of science and technology to deliver fully on all their promises. Chernobyl, holes in the ozone layer, pesticides in the food chain, and the possibility of a brave new populace created by cloning and genetic engineering have put the mistrust and fear of scientists into our collective hearts.Singers Animal RightsStill, Singer production to emphasize a lot of his points in his book, as to why animal cruelty should be abolished from society. For one thing, animals and humans, de spite some similarities, are gloss over so relatively different that it would be pointless to apply the results that one would acquire from animal testing, and apply it to humans.Aside from that, some(prenominal) animal bruise and its relief by means of anesthesia not only interferes with the data-based results, notwithstanding invalidates it as well. Also, there are now numerous alternatives to animal research, that wouldnt involve hurting them in any way or form. By doing animal research, whether it is call fored or could be beneficial, it is still virtuously wrong to inflict injury upon animals, as they too have the leaning to feel pain.Singers main point of concern is that nonhuman animals should not be subjected to being treated so harshly and without compassion. It is not to say that animals should be treated as equals rather, humans should not do to them what we wouldnt do to our broncobuster species. If a scientist would consider it immoral to experiment on an some new(prenominal)wise human being, the same sentiment should be divided up to animals.If it would be morally unacceptable to use human beings as a source of food, then why is eating animals any different? dependable as it is wrong to kill a fellow human being, so should be the case with animals as well. Singer believed that animals should not be a means towards our end, and treat them as mere commodities which only embody to satisfy our own inevitably, and should be treated as fellow financial support things (Lim, 2008).Singers philosophical views hold a lot of truth, as the abuse that some animals face due to the work of human beings should be considered as morally wrong. Animals should not be subjected to all sorts of scientific experiments, horizontal if these scientists claim that this for the greater good. Some scientists would argue that the studies they make on animals would benefit us, as their discoveries could pave the way for a better understanding of emotional state i n general. But using animals as test subjects should not be con through with(p)d, especially if the animalss health and life is in parrel. Animals should not be harmed, period, no matter what the circumstances are. In terms of preserving their lives, their rights should be meet as a high as any humans.Contradicting Singers ArgumentsThough some of Singers arguments may be valid, I cannot say that I agree with some of his beliefs. For instance, in the animal kingdom, when a dominant animal kills one of its prey and feeds it to its family, is that animal considered a murderer? Would it also be considered as, ironically, inhuman? Some would say that animals kill other animals as part of their pristine insticts, as a need to feed themselves in order to survive. But if humans eat other animals, shouldnt it also be considered as the same primal needs? Singer might consider the thought of eating meat to be unruly and wrong, but I beg to differ. Since the beginning of time, the earliest o f humans, being not as intelligent as we are now, had the same primal instincts as any other animal. Humans, for the most part, are born as omnivores (Best, 1991).We cannot help it if we crave to eat meat rather than just fruits, vegetables and other natural produce. So for someone to dispute that humans should not eat animals is to go against our own human nature and instincts. Of course, its wrong to eat a fellow human being. But how often have you seen any other animal eating its own kind, too? In that case, its not horizontal about being a species of higher intelligence. Not even animals of lower intellect would do such a thing. The point is,  eating another species is part of our natural instincts not as humans, but as natural-born omnivores. And to say that we are morally wrong to eat anything other than what grows on the ground would be to contradict the nature of not only humans, but the entire animal kingdom as well. We may be to a greater extent intelligent than anima ls, but have the same primal needs as animals do, and to deprive us of following that need would also be considered wrong.How then, do we come to a compromise? I believe that Singer had it right when he pointed out the abuse that animals endure when being used as test subjects for scientific experiments. This method is not only unnecessary, but it should be considered as morally wrong. The same goes for sports hunting. The killing of animals should not be done as a leisurely activity, as we would not do it against our fellow man. In terms of consuming other animals as food, while I personally believe there should be limits in terms of choosing what animals can be considered, it should not be taken against those who prefer to eat meat. We as omnivores have our own needs. though not to say that we cant survive without eating meat, it is still part of our nature to crave for it. In terms of morals, humans should not be held accountable for consuming other animals, as it is what binds u s with them.To conclude, animal rights have long ways to go before any permanet laws could be issued that would be fair on both sides. Though Singer stresses a lot of important points, one still cannot deny our own rights, not as humans but as part of the circle of living creatures. ReferencesBest, Steven. Philosophy Under Fire The shot Singer Controversy (1991). Retrieved 18 June   2008 from http//www.animalliberationfront.com/Saints/Authors/Interviews/Peter     %20Singersummary.htmLim, Alvin. On Peter Singers Ethics of Animal Liberation (2008). Retrieved 18 June 2008         from http//chlim01.googlepages.com/singer.htmProfessor Peter Singer (2006). International Vegetation Union. Retrieved 18 June 2008 from