PHIL 147 Markets, Ethics and Law
Reading Questions: Chapter 1: All Animals are Equal (Singer)
1. In the early days of the women's rights movement, the idea of "The Rights of
Animals" was used as a reductio ad absurdum for the idea of women's equality.
The idea of this attack (as famously coined by Thomas Taylor in his satirical
publication "A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes") was to show that the
argument for the equality for women could be carried one step further – if the
argument for equality was sound when applied to women, why should it not be
applied to dogs, cats and horses, too? Since this is obviously ridiculous, then the
argument for the equality for women must also be flawed, since the same
reasoning led to both arguments. What are some of the possible responses to this
argument that Singer considers? Why does he reject these approaches?
2. Singer says "The principle of equality of human beings is not a description of an
alleged equality among humans: it is a prescription of how we should treat
human beings." Explain this quote and how Singer argues for this claim.
3. What is speciesism, according to Singer? Explain how the objections to racism or
sexism apply to spieciesism in the same way.
4. For Singer (and other utilitarians), animals are worthy of equal moral
consideration because of their capacity for suffering. Explain Singer's argument
for this claim.
5. How does Singer use the term "sentience?" Based on this definition, what types of
organisms will be sentient, and thus worthy of moral consideration?
6. How do we know that animals feel pain, according to Singer? Are these sufficient
indications that we can feel reasonably certain that animals do in fact feel pain
and suffering in much the same way we do, according to Singer? Do you agree
with him? Why or why not?
7. What is the problem with requiring that a being be able to say "I am in pain"
before we will consider their pain morally relevant, according to Singer? What
types of beings will be included in this definition, and what types of beings will
be left out? What is problematic about this?
8. Most of Singer's article deals with the question of whether it is morally acceptable
to cause pain and suffering to an animal. His answer to this is fairly
straightforward. When it comes to the question of whether it is morally wrong to
kill animals (painlessly), his answers become more complicated and qualified.
The main thrust of his discussion of this point is that whichever way this
argument goes, the main thing that will have to be avoided is speciesist
arguments. Explain some of the arguments (for or against) that he considers, but
rejects because that line of argumentation would be speciesist. What is the upshot
of this discussion? What are the main take-aways?
Karin Howe
Binghamton University
Fall 2013
PHIL 147 Markets, Ethics and Law
Reading Questions: Chapter 1: All Animals are Equal (Singer)
Karin Howe
Binghamton University
Fall 2013