Peter Singer's Argument Analysis

I would have to disagree with Singer assumption that we are all trained to believe that death is always portrayed with a negative connotation, if anything many people believe that death is not the end. Whether we become angels, spirits, or reincarnations many people want have a positive perspective when they will eventually perish. Of course one could argue that beliefs like these exist in part due to the fear of death itself and expecting that we continue existing in some fashion offers provides some relief.    In regards to the question, people here have already given answers that would I agree with, assuming that Mrs. Bennett wasn't embellishing her story in order to frame both her and her husband in a optimistic light, I also can believe

Jonathan Safran Foer’s Eating Animals is a book about persuasion. Foer seeks to convince his readers to take any step in reducing what he believes is the injustice of harming animals. To achieve this, Foer employs many persuasion techniques and often changes his approach when he targets specific groups. His strategies include establishing himself as an ethical authority and appealing to his readers’ emotions, morals, and reason.

In this paper, I will focus on Bonnie Steinbock’s claim on whether or not we should give equal moral consideration to species outside our own species group. I will first determine what moral concern means, according to Peter singer, and explain how he views the human treatment of animals. I will then outline Steinbock’s argument against Singer’s position and explain how her criticism is part of a much broader issue: that is moral concern. I will finally make my argument against Steinbock as well as address any issues she could possibly raise against my argument. Peter Singer believed that all species, whether it be human or non-human, deserve equal consideration of interests and quality of life.

The debate on when it is appropriate to killing anything has been dissected by many, however a correct conclusion can never be made. In Singers, Practical Ethics, chapter 1-4, he dissects the word “human being” into two definitions. Then he compares the two definitions in past occurrences and in analogies, in which he addresses the controversial topic of, the differences in killing a human and a person. His final position is incorrect and this essay will explain to as why his premises and conclusion is wrong and how to improve it.

Norcross believe that one should not eat meat that is raised in a factory. He uses an argument about torturing puppies and eating their brains. Although his argument about Fred and his extreme cruelty to feel the sensation of eating chocolate is cruel, it puts one in a state of mind to pay close attention to his point. What is his point? Eating animals that are raised in factories are just is cruel as torturing puppies for one’s own pleasure.

While pointing out that it is much easier to ignore an appeal for money to help those you’ll never meet than to consign a child to death, Singer uses his utilitarian philosophy to deflect the argument, stating that “if the upshot of the American’s failure to donate the money is that one more kid dies… then it is, in some sense, just as bad as selling the kid to the organ peddlers.” This argument, however, can only be made while using false dilemmas. Singer also addresses a large criticism of his work, that one can’t decide moral issues by taking opinion polls. The argument to this reiterates how the audience would feel being in these situations. This argument is poor as it does not address how the entire article is based on how everyone feels about this particular subject.

One topic that many scholars are debating right now is the topic of animal rights. The questions are, on what basis are rights given, and do animals possess rights? Two prominent scholars, Tom Regan and Tibor Machan, each give compelling arguments about animal rights, Regan for them and Machan against them. Machan makes the sharp statement, “Animals have no rights need no liberation” (Machan, p. 480). This statement was made in direct opposition to Regan who says, “Reason compels us to recognize the equal inherent value of these animals and, with this, their equal right to be treated with respect” (Regan, p. 477).

In the article All Animals Are Equal, written by Peter Singer addresses the inadequacies surrounding the rights of animals in the societies of today. Singer opens the article by presenting a scholarly parallels between the fight for gender equality, banishment of racism and the establishment of rights for “nonhumans.” In order to explain this constant set of inequalities that seem to riddle our society, Singer readily uses the term “speciesism”, which he acquired from a fellow animals rights advocator, Richard Ryder. Essentially, this term is defined by Singer 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. Singer claims that if this idea of speciesism

Rather, Singer’s weaker version is more plausible, that one should take necessary action where we are able to prevent bad states of affairs without sacrificing morally significant (Singer, 1972). It is clear then that moral autonomy to pursue one’s own interests is something that can constitute moral significance. An individual is morally free not to devote themselves full time to prevent famine. It is important to make a distinction between the freedom to pursue one’s own interests and the freedom of wasting resources on excessive luxuries. Singer concedes there is no justification for the purchasing of stylish new clothes as any benefit to this purchase would be sparingly little compares to the benefit it would make for the poor in donating that money (Singer, 1972).

In human history, a number of oppressed groups have campaigned for equality, demanding for an expansion on the moral view of life, and to be treated fairly in the eye of consideration. This means that when the matter concerns this group, their voices are heard, and treated with value, and consideration. Where this equality is not determined by an assembly of facts like that group’s collective intelligence level, the colour of their skin, or the physical strength of their bodies. This is what Peter Singer brings up in his essay: “All Animals are Equal”, that non-human animals should have equal consideration with humans when matters concern them. Going into a specific set of non-human animals known as primates, I argue that primates should have some of the fundamental rights and equal consideration that are given to humans.

However, the author is discredited because of his ethics and controversial personal views from the past. This article first appeared in The New York Times, which is targeted to an upscale readers three times more likely to have a postgraduate degree and twice as likely to make more than $100,000 per year. The author, Peter Singer, is an Australian born ethical philosopher with controversial views such as stating that infants with a handicap should be euthanized but is strongly against the death penalty. American

Don Marquis, on the other side of the abortion debate begins his essay “Why abortion is immoral” through the frustration of little support being given to the thought. This essay was written to show the falsified belief that an anti-abortion stance is nothing other than irrational religious dogma or a conclusion generated by a seriously confused philosophical argument. The argument is set forth throughout that abortion is, except in rare cases, seriously immoral. This essay sets forth the belief that abortion is in the same category as killing an innocent adult human being. Don Marquis argues with rare exceptions such as a life-threatening pregnancy, all cases of abortion are seriously wrong and are not much different than killing an adult

To begin, when talking about animals it can be a very sensitive subject mainly because the way animals are treated on farms, and how no one feels the need to question these actions. This is because many people feel this issue doesn’t concern them. In this essay Matthew Scully discusses the issue on how animals are treated and how they should be given more respect, and attention. Matthew Scully argues that animals in these factory farms are wrongfully treated, he uses biblical references and addresses the morals of humans to get conservatives to act on this matter.

Doris Gudino Professor Chounlamountry Political Science 1 27 July 2015 Pro-Choice Anyone? A woman has, undoubtedly, the freedom to procreate, but once a woman chooses to retreat from that freedom, a commotion arises. Abortion is a woman’s choice for many reasons. It’s her body, therefore, no one else can decide for said person.

Therefore, the discourse analysis is not restricted only to written texts, as it could seem, it covers also talk, conversation, communicative event, etc. Brown and Yule (1983:3) stated that “The analysis of discourse is, necessarily, the analysis of language in use”. From this point of view it is clear that only the language in its authentic natural form must be analyzed. In addition, Brown and Yule (1983: 26) stated that ‘Doing discourse analysis’ certainly involves ‘doing syntax and semantics’, but it primarily consists of ‘doing pragmatics’. Moreover, they refer to the context as to the ‘environment’ or ‘circumstances’ in which language is used.