Saletan should actually read Singer
by
ronald0216
07/14/2008, 8:42 PM #
Anyone who is familiar with Peter Singer's writings on animals will see that Saletan isn't. Singer doesn't argue abstractly for "equality" of species, and does NOT argue, as Saletan states, that differences in treatment are justified merely by differences in intelligence. Singer looks at specific attributes different species have, and then reflects on the implications for ethical treatment of those species.
For example, it would not make sense for dogs to have the right to vote. They are vastly different from human beings in their ability to benefit from such a right. On the other hand, it makes sense to have laws banning the torture of dogs. The nervous system and hind and midbrain that we basically share with dogs and other mammals appear to be what give us the capacity to suffer. If dog suffering is qualitatively just as great as human suffering, is causing it any less wrong? It MIGHT be less wrong, based on some difference between dogs and humans, but Singer argues that mere differences in intelligence don't justify a difference in the judgment of the wrongness of torturing dogs and humans. Would it be less wrong to torture a mentally retarded child, or an Alzheimer's patient?
Though a dog can feel fear just like a human, there is good reason to think it can't feel anxiety--if we define anxiety as fear of future situations we can only imagine. Apes may be more like us in this regard. They may be able to worry about the future, in such a way that long confinement is worse for them than it is for dogs. I don't know that that is true, but it is certainly possible. That is what Singer and the group he is associated with appear to be trying to say.
