Abstract

Philosophical questions devoted to a question of people’s moral obligations to animals have aroused considerably in the last twenty years. One of the leading representatives of ethics of animals’ protection and also a recognized authority on this matter is peter Singer. Philosophical stance represented by Singer, although it refers to Jeremy Bentham’s and Henry Sidgwick’s classical utilitarianism, is more than just its plain continuation.

Singer confronted and compared suffering of animals used in various experiments, scientific research and food production, with clarity which is rather rare in philosophy. Then he compared the sufferings with benefits we – people derive from it. He found out that, in face of his detailed description of problems and ethical dilemmas connected with experimenting and testing and also matters concerning food production, it is questionable whether profits, in the form of knowledge and information acquired at the cost of animals’ suffering and nutritive and flavor profits people gain by eating meat are comparable with discomfort and pain we inflict on animals.

In conclusion Singer states that a present form of treating animals cannot be justified. The essence of Singer’s utilitarianism is treating animals’ ability to feel (sentience) on equal terms with the ability people have as a basis for including them in the area of morality. Because animals are able to feel pain and suffering (or pleasure and satisfaction) in the same way as people can, this ability to feel should be equally taken into account in taking moral decisions. What is more, the ability to feel constitutes the only possible for defence limit of respect for others’ matters. Utilitarianism principle of usefulness, used by Singer for moral estimation of the whole issue, in his case is based on aiming at weighing the entirety of pleasure and suffering irrespective of who experiences them – animals or people. Singer’s conception was seriously criticized by academic circles. The first web of this criticism whose representative is Tom Regan, attacks utilitarian basis of Singer’s stance. In Regan’s opinion it repudiates utilitarianism for it allows too easy use of individuals (including human beings), as a vehicle for the maximalization of the general right examined as one unit. The second web of criticism, whose representative is a French philosopher – Luc Ferry, completely rejects utilitarianism criticizing it from the position of ethics descended from Rousseau’s and Kant’s tradition and founded on transcendental idea of liberty. The third, and a very interesting web of criticism, this time from the position of the holistic environmental ethics, is undertaken by Zdzislawa Piątek. She suspects drawbacks of Singers conception, first of all in his equal treatment of wild and domestic animals and also in ignoring ecological consequences of such approach.