Singer’s argument for animal rights rests on the general principle of equality. He does not mean an egalitarian society in which intellect, moral, or physical abilities are equated, but an ideal of equality in how we should treat one another. He concedes that a demand for equality based on the actual equality of all human beings would be unjustifiable. In accordance with Bentham, Singer presents justification for equality based on a being’s capacity for suffering.
Following this point, there can be no moral justification for not taking a being’s suffering into consideration. In addition, “suffering is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interests of others.” Suffering is a definite commonality whereas if one bases their consideration on intellect or rationality, they would be founding their views in an arbitrary way. From this, Singer clarifies his argument on equality by stating that animals have an equal consideration of interests, not in rights (right to vote, etc.).
Using a utilitarian perspective, minimizing suffering as a whole is the morally correct course of action. And although the ability to suffer is the only justifiable examined factor when taking into consideration the interests of animals, when considering the taking of life, other factors come into play. Certain factors now become viable such as being self-aware, the ability of abstract thought, planning for the future, and complex acts of communication. Singer exemplifies this when you have to choose between saving the life of a normal human being or a mentally defective one. Although most people would choose the normal human being, but when both are suffering, the choice of which one to help is less clear. Therefore, in the circumstances of death, human beings are generally saved over other animals because of inherent characteristics, not merely the fact that they are members of our own species.
Singer goes on in his essay to discuss the current accomplishments of the animal rights movement and its future goals. I would like to raise a few points for discussion. Could Singer’s argument be strengthened if a defended from a Deontological/Kantian perspective? Certain animals could most definitely be considered rational beings (especially when weighted against infantile humans, elderly, those with disabilities), and so would using them as “mere means” be unjustifiable? What is the current status of animal rights in the western world, have these goals proposed by Singer been met? Lastly, based on utilitarian argument imposed by Singer, suppose a dog was about to bite a young child. In order to stop this you must harm the dog. If by harming the dog and protecting the child you inflict greater suffering than bite of the dog, are you morally incorrect to do so?