All Animals Are Equal by Peter Singer

Equality

Taylor's "A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes" was a direct satirical response to Mary Wollstonecraft's "1792 "Vindication of the Rights of Women." The title of Taylor's treatise suggests that the author is making a direct comparison between women (the subject of Wollstonecraft's work) and animals, beasts, or "brutes" (the title of Taylor's work). Therefore, Taylor's central argument against women's rights is that women are animals. If we do not give rights to cows and horses, then why would we proffer those rights to women? Taylor classifies women as an inferior species, likening them to animals. Singer points out that Taylor's argument is rooted in the assumption that animals are inferior to human beings.

Singer argues, "The extension of the basic principle of equality from one group to another does not imply that we must treat both groups in exactly the same way, or grant exactly the same rights to both groups." What he means is that because men and women are fundamentally different, their legal and ethical rights must be conceived of and applied differently. Even animals should be given "equal consideration," even if the actual "rights" they receive may be different from those given to male or female human beings.

3. According to Singer, equal consideration is not the same as identical treatment. Identical treatment denies the essential differences between people, and between men and women. Equal consideration distills the essence of equality, and does not bother itself with detail. The basis upon which Singer lambastes Taylor's case is on the philosophical principle of equal consideration. If the gender argument is extended to animals, as Taylor extends it, then it is clear that equal consideration should be given to all sentient beings. There is "nothing absurd in the idea that the basic principle of equality applies to so-called 'brutes.'"

7. According to Singer, "equality of consideration as the only possible basis for egalitarianism." Equal consideration has the potential to be a more powerful ethical basis for the treatment of others than whether or not certain beings have rights. A rights-based view is too often biased towards humans. Equal consideration translates to different treatment and different rights, based on the nature of diversity. Singer points out, for example, that there are individual differences within each group. Assuming that all men or all women are the same is preposterous. Not all human beings are equal; some are better at math, others are better at art. Animals are not equal to humans, but they deserve equal consideration.

8. Most human beings are "speciesist," according to the author. They believe, as a racist does in relation to race group status, that animals are hierarchically inferior to human beings. As a result of the presumed superiority of human beings, people brutally murder non-humans on a scale that is inhumane -- not to mention completely unnecessary. Eating animals is unnecessary because it is possible to get protein by other means; testing on animals is also unnecessary when viewed from the philosophical stance of equal consideration. Animals deserve equal consideration. As Singer puts it, "Would the experimenter be prepared to perform his experiment on an orphaned human infant, if that were the only way to save many lives?"