An influential argument against speciesism, advanced by Singer, rests on what he calls the principle of equal consideration of interests (PEC). This is the claim that one should give equal weight in one's moral decision making to the like interests of all those affected by one's actions.
Singer regards speciesism as discrimination on the basis of species membership, on a par with sexism and racism: speciesists unjustifiably favour the interests of members of their own group over the interests of others.
In his groundbreaking book Animal Liberation, philosopher Peter Singer defines speciesism as “a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species.” But it's also speciesist to treat one animal's life as more valuable than another's.
In his article “All animals are equal”, Peter Singer presents claims that people are supposed to offer the same respect to non-human animals just the same way they offer respect to fellow humans. He claims that all the animals; be they human or non-human, are equal.
By far, the best explanation of people's behavior is speciesism itself. For example, even though people know that dogs and pigs are about equal in intelligence and possess about the same ability to suffer, people are still are much more likely to help dogs than pigs.
Indeed, mistreatment of animals is utterly pervasive in our way of life. But speciesism is sheer prejudice — nothing more — and our giving greater consideration to humans than to animals is utterly unjustified.
Speciesism, as Singer defines it, is “an attitude of bias against a being because of the species to which it “belongs” — in short, discrimination against nonhuman animals.
Singer's theory does not concern rights since Singer does not believe that animals or humans have rights. Indeed, Singer himself refers to his theory as one of "animal liberation" and states that claims of right are "irrelevant." "The language of rights is a convenient political shorthand.
Singer's Principle of the Equal Consideration of Interests says that identical interests must be given equal moral weight no matter in what type of being they occur. Thus a moral agent must be species impartial. This principle follows from utilitarian moral theory.
-Singer argues that we should apply the "equal consideration of interests" as the principle of equality to beings with interests (besides humans). -Singer compares the irrational preference for one's own species (speciesism) to racism.
How does Singer respond to the argument that humans' interest deserve special consideration because of the "intrinsic dignity of human beings"? By dismissing the idea of "intrinsic dignity" as a meaningless phrase.. Singer argues that the slogan that "all animals are equal" is mistaken.
This is a quotation from George Orwell's allegorical novel Animal Farm.
Speciesism, as Singer defines it, is “an attitude of bias against a being because of the species to which it “belongs” — in short, discrimination against nonhuman animals.
The Argument from Marginal Cases is an argument that attempts to demonstrate that if animals do not have direct moral status, then neither do such human beings as infants, the senile, the severely cognitively disabled, and other such “marginal cases” of humanity.
-Singer argues that we should apply the "equal consideration of interests" as the principle of equality to beings with interests (besides humans). -Singer compares the irrational preference for one's own species (speciesism) to racism.
Singer's Principle of the Equal Consideration of Interests says that identical interests must be given equal moral weight no matter in what type of being they occur. Thus a moral agent must be species impartial. This principle follows from utilitarian moral theory.