Singer and the Complexity of Suffering
In his essay “All Animals Are Equal,” Singer seeks to expand utilitarian ethics to consider not only human suffering but also the suffering of animals. He argues that if we give ethical priority to humans on the basis of intelligence or cognitive function, as is often done, then that actually threatens equality within humanity. If we base equality off of IQ, for example, and the idea that people across different groups tend to have the same IQ, then unequal treatment of the mentally disabled becomes permissible, hierarchy on the basis of IQ is allowed, and equality between different ethnicities and genders becomes contingent on scientific findings that could, under this way of thinking, later allow for inequality. Singer argues that in order to have a sound grounding for equally considering one another’s interests within humanity, we must find something other than intelligence, rationality, or the capacity for language. He posits the capacity to suffer as the grounding because it is not just another capacity or quality but rather the baseline requirement of having interests. A stone being kicked does not suffer, but a mentally disabled human and an animal both can suffer and therefore ought to both be worthy of ethical consideration. He expands Bentham’s notion of “each counts for one” to also include animals so that all suffering beings are considered in this utilitarian framework. In order to reduce the net amount of suffering in the world, as utilitarian ethics strives to do, we must reduce the suffering of animals as well.
Singer then focuses on two abuses large scale abuses of animals happening in the world: the meat industry and animal testing. For the former, he describes in depth the horrible conditions that animals in the meat industry live under merely for the sake of human tastes. He suggests that humans have a moral obligation to become vegetarian so that the meat industry can end and the suffering of those animals can cease. Humans are able to get adequate nutrition from other sources and therefore do not need to continue killing animals for meat. In fact, a human who will not change their diet to save animals, according to Singer, is akin to a slave owner who would not change their lifestyle and free their slaves. Similarly, Singer argues that most forms of animal testing going on are incredibly cruel to the animals involved and yield negligible benefits to humanity. Therefore, animal testing ought to either cease or take on much higher standards of consideration for the wellbeing of the animals involved. Singer argues that if you would not do it to an orphan or to a mentally disabled human, then you should not do it to an animal.
Singer’s essay’s strength lies in its push for a better grounding for equality. It is clear that in this essay, Singer is not only concerned with animals, but also humanity. The current grounding that most people use for equality can be incredibly problematic. If taken to its logical conclusions, then horrible things can become justified. If we base ethical consideration off of IQ or the capacity to reason, then portions of humanity can lose their equal standings. In pushing the grounding of equality beyond intelligence, Singer not only expands ethical concern into the animal kingdom but also preserves it within humanity.
There are, however, several serious problems with Singer’s essay. First is one that may seem like a rather obvious problem in his call for vegetarianism. Singer’s argument is that if we all become vegetarians, then the meat industry will lose all of its income, go out of business, and the animals suffering therein will be freed. This seems to be built on a very naïve “vote with your dollar” logic that does not take into account the complexities of the capitalist system. This leads Singer’s call for vegetarianism to come across as naïve and over-simplistic.
Another major problem is that Singer takes a purely quantitative approach to suffering, whereas most people would argue that a qualitative approach is necessary. Singer’s approach is a quantitative view of all of the suffering beings in the world. The quality or subjective consideration of one’s suffering is not taken into account. All suffering is taken to be equal. The nuances of suffering as a thinking, emotional being are glossed over. When most people consider suffering, they do not think of it in a quantified way or as a simple binary of “suffering” and “not suffering.” A slave and a Holocaust victim do not merely suffer as opposed to not suffering, they suffer in rich, complex ways shaped by their human intellect and depth of emotion. Singer at one point compares a person unwilling to give up meat to a slave-owner unwilling to give up his slaves. In this overly simplistic comparison, he does not even consider whether the enslaved humans, being intelligent and emotional beings, may in fact be more capable of suffering or capable of a qualitatively worse form of suffering.
Questions for consideration: Is there a qualitative way to evaluate animal suffering? Is ending the meat industry as simple as changing our spending habits?
Word count: 830
Work Cited
Singer, Peter. “All Animals are Equal” Environmental Philosophy: From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology, Edited by Michael E. Zimmerman, Pearson, 2005, pp 25–37.
