Hieu Kinh Le Myo Min College writing class 3/5/2012

A view of Peter Singer. Peter Singer is one of the most influential philosophers alive, and he has an original idea about treating animal and human. The main idea of his theory is that animals which have enough consciousness to feel pain or hurt should be treated like human. According to Peter, humans life is not necessarily more sacred than animals, in other words a man who has completely lost his mind and feelings maybe in some cases is even not worth as much as a healthy dog. Therefore, due to Singers thought, people should save a pig or cow from unnecessary pain rather than trying to protect and keep lifeless men alive using modern medical therapy. For example, it is more moral to do experiments on lifeless men than on strong rat because at least that rat has feelings and it can suffer from pain but the man cannot. More remarkably, Peter believes that parents who have disabled and unconscious children should be allowed to kill their babies and replace the kids with the new healthy ones. As doing this, the parents have reduced the pain and have a brighter future with their new kids. For instance, Tony Bland, who has suffered from a catastrophic accident in Liverpool and eventually lost his mind and lived like plants, should die and his parents might replace him with a more healthy kid. This is not immoral because Tony cannot feel the pain anymore and his death could help their parents avoid being obssessed by their disabled child. In addition, Singers thought includes a strange view about moral related to relationships between people. He argues that anyone has equal values with another one, so, in dangerous situations, a mans daughter only deserves to have equal chance to survive as a stranger, and if there are more than one stranger, the man should save the strangers rather than his daughter.

I agree that animals with full consciousness should be treated well. It could be reasonable if human kill animals for food in order to survive because any carnivore on earth does so to survive. For example, a shark, having a full awareness of pain and hurt, cannot stop eating another fish because of moral fear that its terrible to swallow flesh and bonds of living creatures. It kills because it has to do so to live; it was born to kill, to survive. However, human should avoid killing animal for unreasonable purposes such as hunting or experimenting on cosmetic. Imagine that one day human beings are dominated by a superior species that is much more intelligent than human. We know that its reasonable if they kill us for food and they are able to do so because of their superior. Its quite normal in the nature that the stronger eat the weaker, but we will definitely not accept they use us as tools for experiments. Indeed, animals should be treated well. Although I agree with Peters point that animals should be prevented from unnecessary pain, I cannot accept his ideas about relationships and treatments between people. It cannot be called moral if one kills his child because the kid has no feelings and consciousness. Even in wildlife, animals like zebras live in big herd and protect each individual in herd to survive crocodiles and lions. Further more, anyone who is born deserves a chacne to live. If Singer thinks that human dont have the right to kill animals, he must admit that human dont have the right to kill people, especially family members. A great example for this idea is Anne Mc Donald, a disabled philosopher. Anne suffers from cerebral palsy and she even cannot use her muscles or vocal cords. If Singer had been Anne father, he could have killed Anne due to his theory. However, Anne still lived and she could work well, publishing books and travel around the world. Not many healthy women could achieve success like Anne. Also, Singers theory depends too much on medical diagnosis. Singer can know a child is completely lost consciousness because doctor told him that. But doctors are not always right. Human health care has achieved great success in 20th century, saving millions lives from dangerous diseases but our medical system hasnt reach the perfection. There are many areas human havent discovered, so to say that a kid is totally lost consciousness is not always true. In addition, despite the great ideas Peter write in books, he didnt seem to act like what he thought. He cannot force himself to kill his mother, a victim

of Alzheimers disease but spend hundred thousands dollars caring for her. He justified that his money could provide employment for people who take care for Singers mother. But if its logical, any parents who have disabled children can help many people by keep their illnes sons and hire many people to care for that sick kid. Without doubt, it is wrong to kill people whether they are disabled or not.

Partners comment: You seem to be discussing all of Singers theories and beliefs, including the ones about killing severely disabled human. This is a bit off topic. We should be focusing on Singers arguments for animal rights. You should expand and talk a little bit more about your opinion on how animals should be treated. Your use of transitions words and expressions is very good. However, some sentences still sound a bit awkward. Partners name: Huyen Minh Nguyen.