Animal v. Human Rights
Compiled by Dennis Sullivan, MD
Dr. Peter Singer is a grandfatherly-looking man. This world-renowned scholar and chair of bioethics at
Princeton University’s Center for Human Values is sitting in his living room sipping tea. Since he is originally
from Australia, Richard John Neuhaus has described him as “a bright, articulate, and very personable bloke.”
He has graciously invited you to his home to share some tea, along with his views on ethics, life, and values. He
leans back expansively and begins to speak:
Thank you for coming to my home today. I would like to share with you my views on ethics and
morality. As I do so, I wish to point out that the views I put forward should be judged not by the extent to which
they clash with accepted moral views but on the basis of the arguments I use to defend them.
I am an ethical consequentialist. Central to my system of ethics is the principle that each person is to
count as one and no person is to count as more than one. The ethical goal of my system is to minimize pain and
maximize pleasure. Utility, equality, universality, and individual choice are the hallmarks, not some outmoded
dogma based on ancient writings such as the Bible, the meaning of which is open to many interpretations.
When we say that all human beings, whatever their race, creed, or sex, are equal, what is it that we are
asserting? Like it or not, we must face the fact that humans come in different shapes and sizes; they come with
differing moral capacities, and differing intellectual abilities. If the demand for equality were based on the
actual equality of all human beings, we would have to stop demanding equality. It would be an unjustifiable
demand.
There is no logically compelling reason for assuming that a factual difference in ability between two
people justifies any difference in the amount of consideration we give to satisfying their needs and interests.
The principle of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans:
it is a prescription of how we should treat similar animals.
Yes, you heard me correctly; I said “animals.” My aim is to advocate a mental switch in our attitudes
and practices towards a very large group of beings: members of species other than our own. In other words, I
am urging that we extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of us recognize should be
extended to all members of our own species.
Ethically, to act as though some humans are morally more valuable than others is to be guilty of racism.
I would accuse many members of our society of being guilty of “speciesism.” The racist violates the principle
of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of members of his own race, when there is a clash between
their interests and the interests of those of another race. Similarly the speciesist allows the interests of his own
species to override the greater interests of members of other species. The pattern is the same in each case. Most
human beings are speciesists. I shall now very briefly describe some of the practices that show this.
For the great majority of human beings, especially in urban, industrialized societies, the most direct form
of contact with members of other species is at mealtimes: we eat them. In doing so, we treat them purely as
means to our ends. There can be no defense of eating flesh in terms of satisfying nutritional needs, since it has
been established beyond doubt that we could satisfy our need for protein and other essential nutrients far more
efficiently with soy beans, or products derived from soy beans, and other high-protein vegetable products.
Furthermore, in order to have meat on the table at a price that people can afford, our society tolerates
methods of meat production that confine sentient animals in cramped, unsuitable conditions for the entire
duration of their lives. The same form of discrimination may be observed in the widespread practice of
experimenting on other species in order to see if certain substances are safe for human beings, or to test some
psychological theory about the effect of severe punishment on learning, or to try out various new compounds
just in case something turns up.
Would the experimenter be prepared to perform his experiment on an orphaned human infant, if that
were the only way to save many lives? If the experimenter is not prepared to use an orphaned human infant,
then his readiness to use nonhumans is simple discrimination, since adult apes, cats, mice, and other mammals
are more aware of what is happening to them, and more self-directing and as any human infant. There seems to
be no relevant characteristic that human infants possess that adult mammals do not have to the same or a higher
degree.
Philosophers tend to waffle on this point. They resort to high-sounding phrases like “the intrinsic dignity
of the human individual” or the “intrinsic worth of all men” as if men (humans?) had some worth that other
beings did not. The truth is that the appeal to the intrinsic dignity of human beings appears to solve the
egalitarian's problems only as long as it goes unchallenged. Once we ask why it should be that all humans –
including infants, mental defectives, psychopaths, Hitler, Stalin, and the rest – have some kind of dignity or
worth that no elephant, pig, or chimpanzee can ever achieve, we see that this question is difficult to answer.
Because there is no morally significant difference between human beings and animals, it is permissible,
even sometimes ethically required, to kill children after they have been born. After all, a mature ape or
chimpanzee has more mental functioning, awareness, and emotions than a newborn human baby. Therefore, it is
mere speciesism to assert that the human baby should have a greater right to life – especially if that infant is
defective in some way. Lacking intelligence or the ability to ever develop it, it may never have the potential that
an adult member of another species has. Therefore, babies have no intrinsic right to life, and only have value as
it is conferred upon them by their parents.
Some people disagree with these conclusions, but ethical progress always meets with resistance from
alarmists. Again, thank you kindly for coming to my home today. What do you think of my ethical ideas?
Would you care for some more tea?
Questions for Discussion:
1. What ethical theory is the basis of the ideas outlined here? Do you hold to the same ethical basis to make
decisions in your own life?
2. If human beings are not equal to each other in appearance and physical traits, how can they be equal
morally?
3. Are there biblical reasons to make a distinction between persons and animals? After you have worked on
this from a Christian perspective, can you defend against the charge of “speciesism” without resorting to
Scripture?
4. Do animals indeed have rights? Is Dr. Singer correct in saying that such “rights” have been abused?
5. Must we all become vegetarians in order to avoid the excesses outlined by Dr. Singer?
6. What implications do Dr. Singer’s ideas hold for medical research using animal models?
7. Do human babies have any more rights than animals? Look for both Christian and secular answers to this
question.
8. What are the implications of Dr. Singer’s ideas for the abortion debate? For human cloning?
9. In other writings, Dr. Singer has pointed out that there is no morally relevant difference between a fetus at
eight months of development and a newborn baby, i.e., that late-term abortion and infanticide are morally
equivalent. Many pro-life writers have made the same point. Is everyone in agreement here?
10. Peter Singer has also defended euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, using the same utilitarian
principles as outlined here, to eliminate the “less functional” members of society. It may surprise you to
know, therefore, that Dr. Singer himself has devoted many thousands of dollars and has provided elaborate
nursing care for his own mother, suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. What is your reaction to this?
References:
Most of the statements attributed to Peter Singer in this case study are direct quotes or allusions to ideas
presented in: Peter Singer, Animal Rights And Human Obligations, Tom Regan and Peter Singer (eds). Second
Edition, Prentice Hall, 1989.
For a conservative commentary on the animal rights movement and Peter Singer’s ideas, see Robert Derr,
“Animal Rights, Human Rights,” First Things 20 (Feb. 1992): 23-30. This is available online at:
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9202/articles/derr.html