In “Equality for Animals?”, Peter Singer argues that “speciesism” is an unjustified prejudice. What is “speciesism”? Why does Singer think that speciesism is an unjustified prejudice akin to racism or sexism? Do you agree with Singer? Why/why not?
It should be double-spaced, with 12-point font and 1-inch margins. Explain a view and then either explain why you disagree with the view, or why you agree with the view (writer’s choice whether you agree or disagree)
• If you agree with the view, then you can explain why the argument succeeds by considering one or two objections to the argument and defending the view against those objections.
• If you disagree with the view, raise an objection to it. For example, does it make a mistake in reasoning at some point? Does it rely on a false analogy? Does it make a false assumption? Does it lead to absurd implications? (You do not need to raise all of these objections in your paper. They are meant as suggestions to help you think through the assignment)
Sample solution
Dante Alighieri played a critical role in the literature world through his poem Divine Comedy that was written in the 14th century. The poem contains Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. The Inferno is a description of the nine circles of torment that are found on the earth. It depicts the realms of the people that have gone against the spiritual values and who, instead, have chosen bestial appetite, violence, or fraud and malice. The nine circles of hell are limbo, lust, gluttony, greed and wrath. Others are heresy, violence, fraud, and treachery. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Dante’s Inferno in the perspective of its portrayal of God’s image and the justification of hell.
In this epic poem, God is portrayed as a super being guilty of multiple weaknesses including being egotistic, unjust, and hypocritical. Dante, in this poem, depicts God as being more human than divine by challenging God’s omnipotence. Additionally, the manner in which Dante describes Hell is in full contradiction to the morals of God as written in the Bible. When god arranges Hell to flatter Himself, He commits egotism, a sin that is common among human beings (Cheney, 2016). The weakness is depicted in Limbo and on the Gate of Hell where, for instance, God sends those who do not worship Him to Hell. This implies that failure to worship Him is a sin.
God is also depicted as lacking justice in His actions thus removing the godly image. The injustice is portrayed by the manner in which the sodomites and opportunists are treated. The opportunists are subjected to banner chasing in their lives after death followed by being stung by insects and maggots. They are known to having done neither good nor bad during their lifetimes and, therefore, justice could have demanded that they be granted a neutral punishment having lived a neutral life. The sodomites are also punished unfairly by God when Brunetto Lattini is condemned to hell despite being a good leader (Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). While he commited sodomy, God chooses to ignore all the other good deeds that Brunetto did.
Finally, God is also portrayed as being hypocritical in His actions, a sin that further diminishes His godliness and makes Him more human. A case in point is when God condemns the sin of egotism and goes ahead to commit it repeatedly. Proverbs 29:23 states that “arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected.” When Slattery condemns Dante’s human state as being weak, doubtful, and limited, he is proving God’s hypocrisy because He is also human (Verdicchio, 2015). The actions of God in Hell as portrayed by Dante are inconsistent with the Biblical literature. Both Dante and God are prone to making mistakes, something common among human beings thus making God more human.
To wrap it up, Dante portrays God is more human since He commits the same sins that humans commit: egotism, hypocrisy, and injustice. Hell is justified as being a destination for victims of the mistakes committed by God. The Hell is presented as being a totally different place as compared to what is written about it in the Bible. As a result, reading through the text gives an image of God who is prone to the very mistakes common to humans thus ripping Him off His lofty status of divine and, instead, making Him a mere human. Whether or not Dante did it intentionally is subject to debate but one thing is clear in the poem: the misconstrued notion of God is revealed to future generations.
References
Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). Dante’s inferno: Seven deadly sins in scientific publishing and how to avoid them. Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed, 267.
Cheney, L. D. G. (2016). Illustrations for Dante’s Inferno: A Comparative Study of Sandro Botticelli, Giovanni Stradano, and Federico Zuccaro. Cultural and Religious Studies, 4(8), 487.
Verdicchio, M. (2015). Irony and Desire in Dante’s” Inferno” 27. Italica, 285-297.
Sample Answer
Sample Answer
Equality for Animals: Challenging Speciesism
Introduction
In his thought-provoking essay, “Equality for Animals?”, Peter Singer presents the concept of “speciesism” and argues that it is an unjustified prejudice. He contends that treating animals as inferior beings solely based on their species is comparable to other forms of discrimination, such as racism or sexism. This essay aims to explore the concept of speciesism, analyze Singer’s arguments, and present a perspective on whether speciesism is indeed an unjustified prejudice.
Understanding Speciesism
Speciesism can be defined as a belief that places humans above all other animals solely based on their species membership. It is the act of assigning different moral values and rights to different species without sufficient justification. Essentially, speciesism involves privileging human interests over the interests of non-human animals, leading to the exploitation and mistreatment of the latter.
Singer’s Argument
Singer argues that speciesism is an unjustified prejudice because it lacks a morally relevant difference between humans and animals. He asserts that characteristics such as intelligence, self-awareness, or the ability to reason are not valid grounds for differentiating moral consideration. Singer claims that these traits are present to varying degrees among humans and even absent in certain individuals (e.g., infants or mentally disabled individuals), yet we do not deny them basic rights and moral consideration.
Furthermore, Singer argues that the capacity to suffer is what truly matters in determining moral worth. Since animals have the ability to experience pain and suffering, they should be granted moral consideration similar to humans. He draws parallels between speciesism and historical prejudices like racism and sexism, emphasizing how these prejudices were based on arbitrary characteristics such as skin color or gender.
Agreement with Singer
I find myself in agreement with Singer’s argument against speciesism. His comparison of speciesism to other forms of discrimination helps highlight the flaws in our treatment of animals. Just as it is unjustifiable to discriminate against individuals based on race or gender, it is equally unreasonable to discriminate against animals based solely on their species.
One potential objection to Singer’s argument is the claim that humans possess unique cognitive abilities and moral agency, which justifies their superior treatment. However, Singer effectively counters this objection by pointing out that not all humans possess these characteristics equally. If we grant moral consideration to humans who lack these traits, such as infants or mentally disabled individuals, then we should also extend this consideration to animals who possess the capacity to suffer.
Moreover, Singer’s focus on the capacity to suffer as the basis for moral consideration is compelling. Pain and suffering are universal experiences shared by humans and animals alike. By disregarding the suffering of animals, we perpetuate an unjust hierarchy that prioritizes human interests over their well-being.
Conclusion
Peter Singer’s argument against speciesism challenges us to re-evaluate our treatment of non-human animals. By highlighting the arbitrary nature of species-based discrimination and emphasizing the importance of suffering as a morally relevant characteristic, Singer provides a compelling case for extending moral consideration to animals. I agree with Singer’s view that speciesism is an unjustified prejudice akin to racism or sexism and believe that recognizing and addressing this bias is crucial for promoting equality and justice in our treatment of all beings.
