One online article counters Singer's words with an idea that he, or his fictional daughter, didn't formulate. By going over Singer's utilitarian reasoning, Alex Melonas, an animal rights activist, agrees that nonhuman animals can't think about what they'll do years into their future; however, Singer did not mention their sentience - their ability to feel. According to Melonas, painlessly killing animals "does violate an interest, an interest in continuing [...]" ("Is Killing Painlessly Okay?"). It is a part of both human and nonhuman animals' instincts to stay alive, and having that taken away is a wrong in itself. Whether it's a mentally challenged infant or a happy pig, they both have the right to continue to live; they may live miserable lives, but none of them actually want to die.
If this is not the case, then how do we even know that Singer actually believes what he said about nonhuman animals? He doubts that Coetzee's use of meta-fiction makes it clear of his point of view, so "are they Coetzee's arguments?" (Singer 7). Is painless killing not being wrong in itself his argument or a fictional character's?
Works Cited
Coetzee, J.M. "Reflections: Peter Singer." The Lives of Animals. New Jersey: Princeton University
Press, 1999. Print.
Melonas, Alex. "Is Killing Painlessly Okay?" all-creatures.org. The Mary T. and Frank L. Hoffman
Family Foundation. n.d. Web. 14 May 2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment