In the following sections, I will first explain Singer’s view and show that I am against it in my own words in order to be more precise. I will also point out one main ambiguity related to my view in his argument in order to clarify which exact disambiguation I disprove. Then, I will propose my objection to his view and explain why I think it is a good one. The last section will include a strong response that I think an advocate of Singer’s view would possibly respond to my objection and the explanation why it does make a good point.
In his article All animals are equal, Singer argues that if racism and sexism are wrong, then so does speciesism. He claims that if all humans should be treated equally, then, equality is not about equal rights based on the difference of intelligence, moral capacity, physical strength, or similar matters of fact. Instead, he argues that equality is based on equal concern. According to Singer, the Principle of Equality states that the interests of every being affected by an action are to be taken into account and given the same weight as the like interests of any other being. Moreover, in the article, Singer notes, In other words, I am arguing 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 (Singer, 2). Therefore, according to the combination of the two views, Singer claims that humans must give the same respect to identical interests of all beings that have the ability tosuffer or experience enjoyment or happiness (ability to feel pain and pleasure). He argues that the Principle of Equality is the only non-arbitrary way to treat other creatures.