Running head: ANIMAL LIBERATION 1

Animal Liberation
 ANIMAL LIBERATION 2

Animal Liberation

The calls for animal rights trace its roots from the writings of different philosophers. The

ideas behind animal Liberation of 1975 through the authorship of Peter Singer, an Australian

philosopher, informs the emphasis on intrinsic value and the interconnectedness of nature that

motivates the foundation of animal rights movements. In his works, another philosopher, Tom

Regan from America, The Case for Animal Rights of 1983, informs the same course. As for these

philosophers, animal rights extend beyond animal ill-treatment to cover all forms of animal

exploitation, such as the use of animals for scientific and medical research or sources of

entertainment. Animal liberation ethics concerns itself with the concept of equality. As of this

claim, human beings are equal, their gender, race, psychological attributes notwithstanding. This

ethical view opposes discrimination against particular biological groups, denouncing any form of

special treatment to specific quotas due to their unique psychological characteristics. If animal

liberation persists, humans must observe the calls of moralists such as Aristotle because such

provisions offer insights concerning the need to respect the moral status of members of other

species with equal consideration as we do to members of the human species. The interests of

aninals should be considered throughout their lives by humans to keep the species in good

condtions as humans.

The proponents of animal liberation argue that equality warrants consideration and not

equal treatment. In his ethics, Jeremy Bentham thinks that moral equality entails the interest of

every being as of the essence and must be taken into account and awarded the same weight as

any other being. Humans strive to consider the interests of their fellow humans equally,

regardless of their physical appearance, psychological capacities. They should extend similar

consideration to non-humans because the question is not whether they can reason or talk but can
 ANIMAL LIBERATION 3

they suffer? Suffering and enjoyment characterize interests, and animals harbor such capacities

(Best, 2014). Although humans, like animals, feel pain, the former forms mental constructs that

animals’ pain is lesser. No individual can feel pain on behalf of their counterpart, but it is only in

their state of consciousness that particular actions exert pain.

They base such reasonable interference on behavior observation and the knowledge that

all humans have a nervous system that produces similar feelings across the board. Humans must

extend similar consciousness to animals because they have a nervous system similar to theirs,

making similar feelings concerning pain (Singer, 2017). Although humans have an advanced

cerebral cortex that controls their thinking, emotions, impulses, and feelings are located in the

diencephalon, which is well pronounced in mammals and birds; hence, animals too experience

pain. Such thinking should inform humans’ consideration of animals’ plight.

Humans have utilized animals for their research for the longest time, exposing them to

experiments denying their rights. Scientists justify such approaches to the need to discover new

approaches to treatment that are beneficial to the human race. However, some approaches are

unjustified. For example, they exposed dogs to electric heat, causing their death or driving

monkeys into lifelong depression. Such unobjective exposure of animals to suffering expresses

how humans treat them as items. No individual stops for a moment to imagine the suffering

animals experience. For example, Thomas Gennarelli’s experiment at the University of

Pennsylvania exposed monkeys to head injuries as he examined their brains. It took the effort of

the Animal Liberation Front, who broke into the lab to release the animals. The scientists

operating on the unanesthetized monkeys mocked and laughed as the frightened animals came

out of the room where the surgeons were operating on their open brains (Sideris et al., 2019).
 ANIMAL LIBERATION 4

The scientists’ actions demonstrate bias because they would have expressed empathy and

probably intervened if this were humans.

The speciesism problem has been persistent, explaining why animal exploitation in

laboratories may not end anytime soon. The classification of animals in different species is a

discriminatory approach that connotes the selfish nature of humans to target other living

organisms for their benefit. This approach is ethically flawed as sexism or racism and helps

humans perpetuate the analogy that animal welfare is unimportant. The governments of the day

across the globe have been developing frontline policies that support the human use of animals

for scientific research. They also fund such projects and acknowledge scientists who answer

some world health issues using animal specimens (Cavalieri, 2016). Other human activities that

demonstrate animal exploitation include their use in entertainment, food, and fashion.

Despite the constant calls by dieticians advocating the use of alternative food sources

such as plant produce to replace animals, humans consistently exploit them, endangering their

health and the animal’s existence. Therefore, humans should understand that failing to respect

other species is counterproductive to their existence because it negatively affects human health

(Alvaro, 2020). This is an aspect of nature taking revenge against the evil humans perpetrate

against them. Also, the use of animals by humans contributes to their extinction, creating an

imbalance in nature which will be a challenge to compensate. A change in this behavior requires

consumer advocacy, education, action, and change of existing legislation, prompting the need for

different stakeholders to permanently improve all animals’ lives (Cavalieri, 2016). The approach

will change the persistent culture of human-first and create new ways of thinking without

violence, as witnessed in previous centuries where animal rights advocates would engage in

property destruction.
 ANIMAL LIBERATION 5

The critics of animal liberation, particularly the defenders of humanism, argue that

human lives and interests require special attention and treatment than non-humans because they

have a duty over the rest of other species (Linzey, 2021). They base such assertions that species,

unlike race, come with vast differences, and since non-humans cannot claim rights, they do not

deserve them either. It is not clear, however, being that the animals have the duties over their

young ones and operate in groups while defending on each other. The adults especialy mothers

take care of their young ones ruling out the arguments of roles and responsibilities.

Also, humanism supporters argue that animals cannot assume duties or express their

interests; hence they cannot claim rights. However, such claims are unjustified because humans

accord rights to the children, yet they have no duties and others are too young even to claim their

rights. Therefore, the humanism claim is a selfish move that aims at exploiting other species for

their benefit. The arguments are unclear due to lack of clear evidence against the respomsibility

of the animals.

The ethics of animal liberation is justified to argue for equal treatment of non-human

species by challenging western moral reasoning, which aims to give humans an upper hand over

other species. Western moral reasoning is subjective because it assumes approaches consistent

with capitalist ideals, providing them with loopholes to exploit non-humans for their advantage

while ignoring that a balanced nature is critical for human survival (Cavalieri, 2016). If the

critics can assume the position of animals when under torture, they would understand the nature

of suffering they face and acknowledge that it is no longer an issue of which species can take

advantage of the other but the moral obligation to consider the interest of each species.

Concisely, the concept of animal rights will remain half-baked if humans do not fully

embrace animal liberation. Peter Singers’ work marked the foundation of animal liberation, and
 ANIMAL LIBERATION 6

humans should embrace his arguments towards achieving moral standing on animal rights.

Humans should learn how to respect animal rights and consider their interests equally as how

they do to their fellow humans. Unfortunately, some quotas persistently argue against animal

liberation, daring those supporting the idea to offer plausible options to the problem. However,

the question that arises is what happens when the animals humans are exploiting get extinct.

Humans must think of animals’ plight and correct past misdeeds by advancing the principle of

non-maleficence and the concept of equal consideration of interests. The human

misinterpretation of equality contributes to the bias that animals only require a certain degree of

empathy because of their lack of interests and non-verbal capabilities. Philosophers must change

this analogy by considering the reasons for misinterpretation and how humans can internalize the

core argument by ethical philosophers on animal liberation.

Vegetearianism argues on the consideration of the animals’ welfare. It ius argued that all

the protein humans needc are largely dependent on the animal proteins, a reason that pushes for

the feeding of the animals. The animal must be well fed on upto twenty ponds of vegetable

proteinds to enable it provide enough proteins to man. It is clear that most diseases are diet

related below starvation level. The same way humans need adequate balanced diet for their

survival as living thingd is likewise to the animals who are unable to find themselves what is

adequate and balanced.

All animals and human beings are a subject to right-of-a-life. Humans have rights as

other adult animals in the context of right to life. They are both complex biologically with almost

same level of complexity. The animals are aware of their environmemt and existence hence are

considered conscious. Animals have their likes and dislikes just like human beings. The animals

choose what is right for them and avoid that which can harm them and must therefore be
 ANIMAL LIBERATION 7

considered when giving priority to life and such more concepts. The animals are always awareof

what is happening in their environments. The animals hide under shades when raining, others

bask in the sun and locate their places of dwelling without directions. The inherent value

considered with the human beings are not considered in terms of the usefulness of beings. The

same inherence has to be considered with animals. We should stop reasoning in terms of

usefulness of animals to use against them in trems of exploitation. Rights fall for all humans

whether in good state or not irregardless of the value they hold to the society. Entitling the

animals same rights and value is critical in enery reasoning geared towards animals.

Moral relevance between the animals and human beings are similar. The adult animals

carry out themselves in almost similar manner as the humans do. There is no significat

differencve in the ault animal nd ault human beings. The animals should be considered valuable

and morally fit to live within the ecosysytem. The rights of the animals must also be taken into

consideration just as that of humans are considered by fellow men.

On the other hand, theorists like Cartesian, rationalized immorality against animal

morality.the theorists ideas deny animals direct concerns. Cartesian argues that the animals are

not conscious and lack interests that can be guarded. Holding the thory meant that the conscious

would have their interests considered which they claim is not the case with the annimals

(Villanueva 2018). The animals lck welfgare hence there is nothing to be considered abut them

in terms of care. The supporters of the idea claim that they only consider the assessment of the

things that affect the animals if at all they had their welfare.

Moreover, other theorists argue that feeding the animals on vegetable proteins is

unnecessary considering the number of humans dying yearly due to starvation as a result of poor

diet and lack of certain nutrients. The vegetable proteins used to feed animals can be used to feed
 ANIMAL LIBERATION 8

the starving being in the wrld who may need them. In this concern, the theorist advice that the

consumption of meat proteins should be stopped in the wealthy countries especially. Arguments

have it that animals do not carry out themselves in a moral way hence shold not be morally

treated by human beings. It is viewd thwt they are selfish and only consider themselves. Notably,

further arguments were produced claiming that animals do not have rights against each other. It

is further stated that man has no right against animals whie animals actually do have rights againt

man (Villanueva 2018). An example is case where it is illegal to hut animals as it may lead to

penalties while the animals can hunt man without any law against them. It is really absurd as it is

a threat to existence of man.

In conclusion, despite the arguments against the liberation of animals by many scholars,

the rights of the animals matter and should be protected. The animals have an ijportant roe within

the ecosuystem which cannot be taken for granted. The part played by animals within an

ecosystem cannot be suvstituted hence the need to have a more caring relationship to protect the

species from becoming extinct (Singer 2017). Several factors such as the ability of animals to

perceive suffering and pain mak tham a conscious part of the ecosystem that needs to be treated

with care. Arguments such as morality and consciousness does not apply in exluding animals

from receiving the rightful care they deserve. A balanced nature require existence of the animals

the humans are against their survival. Quality and the length of life matters in both man and

animals as the lives of the adults are depended upon by the young ones. Exploitation must be

stopped or else the specieses will become extinct. It is not until humans respect the interests of

other species that they can claim to practice morality. Indeed, humans should not view animals

as property, and scientists should not assume ownership of animals. Animals deserve batter from
 ANIMAL LIBERATION 9

the environment and humans whom they inreact with in their daily lives. It is until we realize the

importance of the animals in the system that man shall stop exploitation of animals.
 ANIMAL LIBERATION 10

References

Alvaro, C. (2020). Ethical veganism. Raw Veganism, 60-

68. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003003960-5

Best, S. (2014). The new abolitionism: Capitalism, slavery, and animal liberation. The Politics of

Total Liberation, 21-49. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137440723_2

Cavalieri, P. (2016). Animal liberation: A political perspective. Philosophy and the Politics of

Animal Liberation, 15-43. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-52120-0_2

Linzey, C. (2021). Cosmological liberation without animal liberation. Developing Animal

Theology, 85-117. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003205678-5

Regan, T. (2017). The case for animal rights. Animal Rights, 17-

30. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315262529-3

Sideris, L., McCarthy, C., & Smith, D. (2019). Roots of Concern with Nonhuman Animals in

Biomedical Ethics. ILAR Journal, 40(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.40.1.3

Singer, P. (2017). Animal liberation or animal rights? Animal Rights, 165-

176. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315262529-12

Singer, P. (1973). Animal liberation. Animal Rights, 7-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-

25176-6_1

Villanueva, G. (2018). Against Animal Liberation? Peter Singer and His Critics. Sophia, 57(1),

5-19.