Professor Peter Singer Advocates for Animal Rights

Ethics professor and moral philosopher Peter Singer delivered an assembly last Friday on his advocacy for the ethical treatment of animals. Ranging from industrial food production to climate change, he outlined the global impact of animal cruelty. Singer also spoke Thursday night to the general public.

Hailing from Australia, Singer first became interested in animal rights when he met a Canadian graduate student in 1970. The student was vegetarian and informed Singer of a new book about the cruelties of factory farming. “I read [the book], and I was pretty disturbed,” Singer said. “That was really the start of my exploration of animals and ethics.”

“My issue with [Singer] has to do with the philosophical underpinnings of his argument, specifically, his obsession with the hierarchy of lives—which lives are more valuable than others, and why. It informs everything he writes, including speciesism,” Dionne said.

Singer currently serves as an Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and a Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne. He is also the co-founder of  The Life You Can Save, a charity whose mission is to “change the culture of giving in affluent countries while dramatically raising annual donations to highly impactful nonprofits that reduce suffering and premature death for people living in extreme poverty.”

The Animal Rights Club invited Singer to campus after reading his acclaimed novel “Animal Liberation.” Faculty adviser and History Instructor Amy Schwartz described how it was “a rare opportunity” to listen to such a knowledgeable speaker. “[Singer] is truly and justly famous,” she said. “I think it’s rare that speakers challenge us so directly and deeply.”

During the assembly, Singer introduced the concept of speciesism—the belief that humans use to enjoy “a moral status which no members of other species actually have.” The first type of speciesism is anthropocentric—in which humans consider themselves to be more important than all other animals—and the second type of speciesism is the bias humans have for certain animals over others.

Singer displayed a picture of dogs being rounded up for food in China. The image drew disgruntled murmurs from the audience while Singer questioned why the ill treatment of dogs garnered more outrage than the suffering of livestock animals, such as pigs, even though the two animals are equally intelligent.

He detailed the plight of chickens in factory farms, who are cramped in barns and forced to live in their own feces, leading many to endure flesh burns from the high level of ammonia from the feces. Moreover, chickens are force fed growth hormones which expedites their growth so much that their underdeveloped legs collapse because they cannot support the artificially  amassed body weight.

The audience found the details repulsive yet informative. “Indeed, I was ready to give up chicken after the assembly,” English Instructor Michelle Dionne said.

Singer then provided staggering statistics on the meat industry. Seventy-four billion animals—approximately 10 times the world’s population—are killed each year for food. However, animal rights activists primarily focus on the animals used in laboratory research, although mortality rates in labs are far less. Moreover, the carbon footprint of the meat industry surpasses all vehicles combined.

While Singer noted that most animals share many of the same physiological aspects as humans, such as pain and discomfort, he noted that not all animals are equal. He advocated for the sentientism, which prioritizes the welfare of species based on how sentient they are.

Singer’s presentation received mixed reviews. Upper Renee Bertrand felt encouraged to become vegetarian, but noted how such a lifestyle is not feasible for everyone. “I personally want to go vegetarian for environmental and moral reasons, but that limits so many of the dishes I grew up with and love,” she said. “Fresh fruits and vegetables are expensive. For many families, [being vegetarian] is not an option because [vegetables are] either not available or they don’t have the means to support it.”

However, many in the Exeter community criticized Singer’s utilitarian beliefs. Singer has made controversial remarks about disabled people’s rights in the past, noting in a New York Times piece how cognitively impaired people may not understand the concept of consent. As a result, disabled persons may not resist non-consensual acts which would cloud the issue of consent in cases of rape or sexual assault of those with disabilities.

“My issue with [Singer] has to do with the philosophical underpinnings of his argument, specifically, his obsession with the hierarchy of lives—which lives are more valuable than others, and why. It informs everything he writes, including speciesism,” Dionne said. “As a Christian and as the parent of a child with an intellectual disability—for Mr. Singer, intellectual disabilities put one way, way down in the hierarchy of valuable lives—I have long found Singer’s love-less approach to life totally repugnant.”

Senior Daniel Kang agreed, recalling Singer weighing the value of helping to provide a blind man with a seeing eye dog versus directing those funds towards preventing 4,000 people from being blinded by trachoma. “I didn’t agree with his assessment that the latter was the most responsible action,” he said. Kang noted how Singer’s moral utilitarian argument provides that we should “judge actions as right when they maximize the surplus of happiness over misery.”

Singer was glad to visit Exeter and had high hopes for his impact upon leaving campus. “I really want to stimulate [Exonians] to think about ethical issues,” he said. “I want them to think about what an ethical life involves in terms of what we eat, how we act towards animals and what we do for making the world a better place particularly with regard to people in extreme poverty in developing countries.”