Written by: Achu Balasubramanian, Saniya Syeda, Mackenzie Warren, Claire Lungwitz
“Chapter 5: Man’s Dominion.” Animal Liberation, by Peter Singer, HarperCollins, 1975.
The author of Animal Liberation, Peter Singer, is an Australian moral philosopher. Having worked in institutions like Oxford and Princeton, Singer is a highly reputed philosopher in applied ethics and uses his knowledge to argue in favor of animal liberation.
This chapter, titled “Man’s Dominion”, is the fifth chapter in Singer’s book, Animal Liberation, which was published in 1975. This chapter is predicated on the subject of “speciesism”, the assumption of human superiority leading to the exploitation of animals, as well as its origins in human thought.
To tackle the history of speciesism, Singer divides the chapter into three historical sections: Pre-Christian Thought, Christian Thought and Enlightenment. The analysis and evaluation of this chapter will be split into the three mentioned categories
Singer argues that Pre-Christian thought advanced the notion of human superiority over animals. He references the Biblical story of creation, in which God proclaims that humans should “have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the earth. (186)” Singer argues that this created a speciesist vision of human dominance among people. Singer also argues that the most prevalent viewpoint of Pre-Christian thought belonged to Aristotle, who believed that “animals exist to serve the needs of man. (188)” Therefore, by citing Biblical works and the thoughts of key thinkers like Aristotle, Singer provides evidence to support his claim that Pre-Christian thought was inherently speciesist.
The arguments put forward in this chapter were strong and well evidenced. However, Singer does acknowledge that “not all Greek thought was uniform. (188)” He provides the example of Pythagoras, who was a vegetarian and proponent of treating animals with respect (188). Though this acknowledgement creates balance, it partially negates Singer’s core argument of Pre-Christian speciesism.
Singer claims that the introduction of Christianity into the Western world came with a new wave of speciesism. The bible asserts that every nonhuman species was created to serve humankind. This ideology quickly took over many western societies. For example, in Rome, “the moral status of killing or torturing any nonhuman remained unchanged. Combats with wild animals continued into the Christian era.”(192) Singer also cited René Descartes, who used Christian beliefs to assert that animals are machines created by God and therefore feel no pain. This led to merciless beatings and tests on animals.
Singer constructs a strong, sustained argument in this section. His examples of Roman societies changing their entertainment to fit speciesist standards and Pope Pius IX denying an animal rights group to establish in Rome because “…to do so would imply that human beings have duties towards animals (196)” create a well evidenced argument for the direct relationship between Christianity and speciesism. Singer’s argument only falls short when discussing “humane Catholics who have done their best to ameliorate the position of their church with regard to animals. (197)” Singer mentions the humane Catholics have successes, but does not go into detail in whether they maintain a speciesist view.
Singer summarizes the Enlightenment as a time in which “there was a gradual recognition that other animals do suffer and are entitled to some consideration. (202)” The idea of “gentle usage” of animals became prevalent during the Enlightenment. This meant that humans were still entitled to use animals, but in a more civil manner. During this period, people had a tendency for more refinement and benevolence, which benefited animals. For example, philosopher Jeremy Bentham prompted the question of animals’ ability to suffer, comparing them to black slaves and equating man’s dominion over them to tyranny. However, all philosophers were not equally affected by the movement. Philosopher Immanuel Kant continued to insist that animals lack conscience, and were a “means to an end,” that end being man (203).
Singer builds a fairly solid argument in this section when describing the rise of new thought during the Enlightenment and the lessening of speciesism. One of the major conclusions he draws is that the popularization of Darwin’s ideas became a major contender for speciesism, which is why it generated such contention. Singer claims that this resistance was “an indication of the extent to which speciesist ideas had come to dominate Western thought” (206). While this statement is mainly true, the controversy surrounding Darwinism did not come just from speciesism, but from a number of other factors, the principal being its violation of many religious teachings (for example, the story of Adam and Eve).
Compared to DeGrazia’s work, Animal Rights: A Very Short Introduction, Man’s Dominion delves deeper into understanding the philosophical framework and historic thought that created the idea of human dominance. However, Animal Rights focuses more on the current state of how animals are being treated by humans. By reading both texts, we can have a better understanding of both the reasoning behind human’s speciesist thought and the direct results of this speciesist though in our world today.
Though it was concluded that, “the modern view of our place in the world differs enormously from all the earlier views we studied,” it can also be inferred that this only applies to a specific part of the world (212). Other countries may have a cultural or religious history that has not changed as drastically when considering human relationships with animals. The specific reactions to human suffering versus animal suffering presented could also be challenged. It is concluded that people will focus their interests on human suffering before animal suffering simply because “the moral attitudes of the past are too deeply embedded in our thought and our practices” (212). However, it can be argued that people do not react this way because of their past, but rather because of their ability to relate to a person’s suffering.