Singer Article Questions

Shannon Ryan
April 3, 2009
New Millennium Studies

1.My ethical perspective is that mammals and vertebrates are similar to humans because of their genetic makeup and because they are not pests, thus they should be allowed to live freely, outside of human control. I regrettably say that I am a meat eater, and have no problem with these animals (pigs, chickens etc.) being killed (because I like the taste of steak, chicken, eggs etc. and would not be okay giving up those courses all together). I suppose that in some ways, that that would make me selfish. However, I don’t believe that these animals should be killed in their youth or immediately after they have their own children (I formed that opinion when I was five and saw the movie Babe, about a pig whose mother is slaughtered when he was no more then a few weeks old), but rather when their children are grown and capable of caring for themselves, or if they are seriously injured. It is also hard for me to say that we shouldn’t have animals in zoos or circuses because those are aspects of entertainment that I grew up with. Thus, I feel that zoos and circuses should keep animals that the save from injury and breed them rather then put animals into captivity by hunting and trapping them. I do think that animal testing is immoral. However, it is difficult for me to feel bad for pests like mosquitoes and because they have only infected irritation and pain on my skin, the exception being bees because I respect their use to mankind to make honey. I formed this perspective through my own experiences with insects, visits to the zoo and circus, Biology Class, seeing movies and reading articles for class about animal testing, breeding and animal slaughter as I’ve grown older.
2. I wouldn’t say that my ethical code is similar to Singer’s other then the fact that we both agree that animal testing is wrong.
However, my ethical code is different from Singer’s because while he seems to argue that we should do away with all captivity and animal slaughter for food, I believe that it should still be done, but in a way that is more just (injury and sickness rather then outright captivity and slaughter).
3. The following of Singer’s arguments are the most convincing in his article, regardless of my inclination to agree or disagree with his opinions. First, Singer’s argument that compares the testing done to a lab rat that could be done to a baby or mentally because all three can’t defend themselves from the impending danger. This argument is strong because by asking the audience to substitute a
animal or insect with a innocent, abused and helpless human (something that is considered immoral in today’s society), the author prompts guilt and interest from the audience, thus making the comparison plausible and powerful. Another of Singer’s most convincing arguments is when he talks about the monkey behavior experiment and that animals can feel pain because just like the comparison to a innocent and helpless child, it is plausible because the grotesqueness of it inflicts disgust in the audience enough that side with his thesis.