Abstract:

The Equal Consideration of Animal Interests:
A Study of the Works of Peter Singer and Temple Grandin
By Stefan Apse

How different are non-human animals from humans? What is our moral obligation towards non-human animals, if any? In this essay I study the works of two people, who in their own ways, have worked toward better welfare of non-human animals.
The first person is Peter Singer, a preference utilitarian ethicist, who argues for animal liberation through his principle of equal consideration of interests. Through his rational argument, Singer advocates that non-human animal interests should be given the same weight as we give to human interests. He argues that the only defensible boundary for deciding a being’s moral status is if a being is capable of suffering, or enjoyment. Any other limit put on a being, like intelligence or rationality, would be arbitrary. Thus, in reference to animals, discriminating against their pain would be unjustifiable. Singer advocates that as rational beings humans should make a moral commitment to eliminating all moral behavior that contributes to the suffering of animals. I focus primarily on agricultural animals and the easy behavioral change we can make by becoming vegetarian.
I also look at the work of Temple Grandin. Grandin is a woman with autism who has, in her own life, struggled to gain control of her autism as well as becoming an animal scientist and professor. Through her unique capacity to understand the behavior of animals, she has worked to change livestock handling procedures and livestock facility design. Her work focuses particularly on the minimizing of fear in the lives of livestock. Her writings impel you to imagine how her mind works and furthermore how the minds of livestock and other animals work.
I find that Grandin’s work along side Singer’s complement each other, and at the same time spawn dialogue over our commitment to the principle of equality