So far as this argument is concerned nonhuman animals and infants and retarded humans are in the same category; and if we use this argument to justify experiments on nonhuman animals we have to ask ourselves whether we are also prepared to allow experiments on human infants and retarded adults; and if we make a distinction between animals and these humans, on what basis can we do it, other than a bare-faced - and morally indefensible - preference for members of our own species?
Interpretation
The quote questions the ethical justification of experimenting on animals versus vulnerable humans, highlighting speciesism.
In this quote, Peter Singer challenges the moral reasoning that leads people to justify animal experimentation while simultaneously dismissing the rights of infants and those with cognitive impairments. He argues that if humans base ethical decisions solely on species membership, it reflects an unjust and indefensible bias, prompting a deeper examination of our moral values and the criteria we use to distinguish between beings deserving of protection and rights.
In practice
This quote can be used in a debate on animal rights to highlight ethical considerations.
The belief that the animals exist because God created them - and that he created them so we can better meet our needs - is contrary to our scientific understanding of evolution and, of course, to the fossil record, which shows the existence of non-human primates and other animals millions of years before there were any human beings at all.
Pain and suffering are in themselves bad and should be prevented or minimized, irrespective of the race, sex, or species of the being that suffers. How bad a pain is depends on how intense it is and how long it lasts, but pain of the same intensity and duration are equally bad, whether felt by humans or animals.
What is faith? If you believe something because you have evidence for it, or rational argument, that is not faith. So faith seems to be believing something despite the absence of evidence or rational argument for it.
Almost everybody accepts that some people can be killed. 'The concept of 'brain death' - the belief that people on respirators can legitimately be killed - shows that.
If we all think only of our own interests, we are headed for collective disaster - just look at what we are doing to our planet's climate.
Even in the era of AIDS, sex raises no unique moral issues at all. Decisions about sex may involve considerations about honesty, concern for others, prudence, and so on, but there is nothing special about sex in this respect, for the same could be said of decisions about driving a car. (In fact, the moral issues raised by driving a car, both from an environmental and from a safety point of view, are much more serious than those raised by sex.)
If the Bible is not the Word of God and inspired, the whole of Christendom for 1800 years has been under an immense delusion; half the human race has been cheated and deceived, and churches are monuments of folly. If the Bible is the Word of God and inspired, all who refuse to believe it are in fearful danger; they are living on the brink of eternal misery. No man, in his sober senses, can fail to see that the whole subject demands most serious attention.
You are in a pitiable condition if you have to conceal what you wish to tell.
Even the enlightened person remains what he is, and is never more than his own limited ego before the One who dwells within him, whose form has no knowable boundaries, who encompasses him on all sides, fathomless as the abysms of the earth and vast as the sky
We ought to recognize that religious strife is not the consequence of differences among people. It's about conflicts between creation stories.
Because the good old rule Sufficeth them,-the simple plan, That they should take who have the power, And they should keep who can.
Life is elsewhere. Cross frontiers. Fly away.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.