All animals are equal “…or why the ethical principle on which human equality is based requires us to also give “equal consideration” to animals”. This principle of equal consideration of interests (ECOI) is a “moral principle” according to which one must both include all relevant interests when calculating the merits of an action and weigh these interests equally. This principle is an incredibly popular principle in animal ethics. Its broad outlines were first formulated by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer. However, the fame and theoretical significance of this principle is based on a utilitarian approach and has become a feature of many other theories of animal ethics. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get an Original EssayIn his book “Animal Liberation,” Singer argues that “if the argument for equality was valid when it was applied to women, why should it not be? dogs, cats and horses? I disagree with the idea that the notion of moral rights should be extended to include animals; we must be concerned about the welfare of animals and their current exploitation by humans because they are sentient beings. I will consider the domination of man and his different capacities in relation to other non-human beings and I will also argue that the principle of equality according to the same capacity for suffering and pleasure considered valid in the attribution of moral rights to a non-human animal like human is a false idea, which can cause further problems in equal consideration of interests, which is why it becomes impossible to extend the ethical circle to non-humans as well. It is essential to note that Singer and Regan take up the principle, evidently first stated by Jeremy Bentham in his prologue to Principles of Morals and Legislation, that the only capacity that counts in the attribution of moral rights is capacity to suffer. Gender, skin color, rationality, intelligence and ability to communicate cannot justify unequal treatment. we cannot assign moral rights based on the capacity to suffer, but also other capacities according to this principle of equality because there are other qualities that attract our preferences when we perform acts and prefer the best action in the options, for example “All Animals Are Equal” by Singer. The resolution implies that the pain of a toothache felt by a kitten, which is of the same intensity as a similar toothache felt by a human child, should count equally in the calculation of social policy. According to Singer, the moral decision-maker would be strictly impartial in managing conflicts of interest of this type between a non-human (a kitten) and a human. If we have to choose between imposing a painful toothache on a human child or a slightly more severe toothache on a kitten, it is probably a social decision. politics should lean in favor of a kitten. This result flies in the face of ordinary common sense, but “Singer considers ordinary common sense a poor guide. Singer's position admits that humans generally have complex and rich interests that arise from their complex and rich mental lives, and since nonhuman animals do not have corresponding complex and rich interests, the principle of equal consideration for equal interests, as Singer interprets it, allows for a legitimate preference. for humans when human and animal interests conflict: if a human child has an interestbased on various abilities, and a kitten cannot achieve something so beautiful, in this case the high quality of this interest makes its satisfaction more valuable than the satisfaction of interests. The principle of equality of human beings is baseless without accepting other species interests, we address the equal interests of homo sapiens and distinguish their rights like women's liberation and racism for example, but the question arises in sympatric human comrades like Singer, Regon and other animal rights activists always try to make this non-humans have rights, they suffer and pleasure are universal abilities like human beings, it's true , but Singer's argument on the basis of "preference utilitarianism", the problem with preference utilitarianism is that interests and desires must be the same as Singer argues that "pain" C "is pain" that because animals desire not to suffer, they have interests in the same way that humans do, but this is the result of a false equivalence between desire and interests. What does it really mean to have an interest? before also considering interest we must know the proper interests of each species, but they have not even prescribed the idea of ​​individuality. “For example, why should one have an interest in living if one has no other types of interests? And what weight should such an interest in life have if we do not know the importance of other interests? Similar considerations also apply to liberty interests. : How can we assume that the “same” interest of two beings must count equally? To answer this question, we must address the question of the basis of equality. The basis of equality in the ECOI principle may be a characteristic of the interest itself or of the fact that the individual having the interests is unpredictable and constitutes an obstacle in the future to decide on a moral law towards the animals. Thomas Hobbes in his book "Leviathan" defines that human being Human beings are selfish by nature and his description of the "state of war", which is brutal, nasty and short, prescribes in one way or another other the importance of rules and regulations for rational beings to make rules, because non-human animals cannot. Ultimately, it seems that non-human animals are not part of such a type of "social contract" that requires rational action as well as language to speak for one's own sake. therefore, in other words, if we humans are trying to establish moral laws for non-humans, it is reasonable to obligate ourselves to good treatment towards animals, but list their rights in the same way. way that ours seems extraordinary, and somehow impossible, because we are non-humans, being a member of another species, how we can ensure the rights of animals, that even animals non-humans are incapable of demanding. We can know the signs by studying their behaviors, but that can only help us deal with them. “Some animals are the object of the sentimental interest of others. For example, you love your dog or your cat. Thus, animals that are important to many people (pets, whales, baby seals, American bald eagles), even if they do not have rights themselves, will be protected in because of people’s sentimental interests.” This thinking prescribes that animals have personal interests or not, or that only the human species is concerned with survival interests, and how is it possible to value the survival of other species instead of one's own, if it This is a kind of violation of other people's rights that we must first clarify.that they have rights or interests that conflict with our own interests. Our society has progressed with time and we have observed changes in which the main contribution should be considered the human capabilities that brought revolution over time, in which the key task of survival was to develop laws of protection and, by distinguishing between good and bad acts, all these things became possible through human beings' capacity for reason, as "John Rawls pursues the first type of threshold strategy in his Theory of Reason." Justice. It proposes that having legal personality above a certain threshold entitles you to the same fundamental moral rights as legal persons. The constitutive traits of moral personality are a capacity for a conception of good and a sense of justice” (writer Dale), but the fact is that animals devoid of reasons are free in their kingdom, whatever they do, for example some animals eat. others, their children and even their eggs without any fear of being punished by laws, therefore humans are only rational creatures, eligible to live a moral life, and most at the heart of the animal question lies the " Descartes' distinction between humans and other non-human animals, based on the possession of a mind and a capacity for conscious thought. The question in an ordinary mind can be raised: we humans must legislate for them and protect their rights. This would be a good thing, but their rights are not yet confirmed and we need more investigations to resolve this conundrum. Secondly, language is a means of communication and also essential tool to express one's own thoughts and emotions to other beings, but non-human beings do not have this communication ability which is necessary to demand something but human beings who suffer after all have: a developed language. As Descartes said, “Humans can tell each other about their experience of pain in great detail, other animals cannot.” The existence of pain can be felt in other non-human animals, but it depends on the "realization" of pain, I mean. put on this scene, for example people used animals to transport goods from one place to another, like a donkey, the transportation of goods may suffer because of the weight, after getting its behavioral gesture we will weigh less, but we cannot measure the real pain, in other words, there is a possibility of pain even by carrying less goods, but we cannot understand that the real pain as a member of another kind of language also helps to heal, so a man can refuse a type of tasks that cause him suffering. , other animals cannot express themselves, for example to consider the singer's argument about "chimpanzees" that one might think that language only benefits chimpanzees, but not all other animals. Finally, the domination of man over other species is a fact. Humans do not hold this thought due to being part of Homo sapiens, but due to the reality they have conformed through different experiences about human beings versus other creatures. We must agree to fight for the demand for an expansion of moral laws towards non-human animals according to the principle of equal consideration of interests which is based on suffering, because we, human beings, do not have the right to animals suffer because they suffered like human beings, but the problem is that we can't. Should we weigh certain rights, which are inappropriate and unfavorable to human beings?.