Progress-Good-Regress-Evil

“Beginning to reason is like stepping onto an escalator that leads upward and out of sight. Once we take the first step, the distance to be traveled is independent of our will and we cannot know in advance where we shall end.”

-Peter Singer

When considering the moral applications of the issues with famine versus animal liberation, Singer speaks about the principle of ethics in two distinct interests.

In Animal liberation, the author compares the distinction of animal versus human rights on the premise of the ability to suffer. Both humans and non-human animals have the capacity to suffer, the only distinctions being the amount due to physical and mental factors. As he pointed out in the reading, a blow to a baby would cause a greater level of suffering as opposed to a blow to a horse that has thicker skin and therefor feels less impact. In the same manner, an animal held captive might show a lower level of suffrage than a person in the same position who can understand his situation based on mental abilities.

But are either justified? You cannot force a blow to a baby and caging a human is immoral and torturous. So then does a horse with a thicker skin deserve to take the hit because it can, or can an animal be caged because it doesn’t understand the possibility of the other?

Singer argues that on the issue of animal liberation, a moral individual obviously cannot apply the same framework of natural rights for humans to animals—too many distinctions and biological differences wont allow it. But in order to be ethical, the individual has to consider the utilitarian idea of the “greatest good” – a principle that aims to impact the majority in a positive way. This is the only measure of moral behavior. 

On the subject of famine in areas like Bangladesh, Singer claims that the primary issue is the greed of affluent individuals, whose moral character falls short in providing for the poor. The author scolds the wealthy individual’s ethical behavior by questioning the failure to provide; he expects the act to be a basic understanding of a moral character. In addition, the author claims that distance cannot be used as an excuse for support; even if you were to never have met the person you’re helping—the action is just.

The wealth we earn to spoil ourselves can be used to save someone from starvation and sickness. It is an obligation we have to follow; to protect those like us whom we share our lifetime with.

There is duty and there is charity. Helping the poor is our duty. 

When asked to compare the two positions, I cannot help but to agree with both—fully. Sure, the criticism can be that “well if animals are proven to be treated differently, people (given the circumstances) can be as well. I fail to see any sort of disposition with these arguments, given their unquestionable logic and appropriateness for the argument.

But if I may add, I admire people like Singer who dedicate their education, intelligence and social power to promote things like animal liberation and famine aid. Throwing red paint on fur, prancing around naked--extremists help no one. They only cloud the judgement of people who can do something about it. Someone more ignorant can group extremists and Singer in one category because of the same objective, but probably do so because of more media attention to extremists and not enough to teachers.