Ethics

In performing a painful medical experiment, is it morally justifiable to use a normal ape instead of a retarded child, while the ape will experience a larger capacity of physical pain than a retarded child (Pollan) In Singers point of view, it is morally considerate to sacrifice the retarded child and save the normal ape.

Singers Position with Respect to Animal Rights and Eating Animals
Singer perceives that animals, just like human beings, have rights he foresees a future whereby (if people agreed to respect animals and treat them with reasonable consideration) practices like eating animals, killing them for sport, experimenting on them and wearing animals will not only be considered as the remnants of a backward age but also a barbaric act (Pollan).

The domain of Singers position on the rights of animals is that animals are not necessarily to be treated equally with human beings, but they have a right for equal consideration of their interests just like humans. For instance, it is impossible to treat a pig and a child equally because a childs interest is in education while that of a pig is in rooting in dirt However, both have a common interest in avoiding pain This is the point where Singers principle of equality insists that they receive equal consideration. Eating animals, according to Singer is a violation of the rights of animals and a sign of lack of moral consideration on them. Singer asserts that because human beings do not eat fellow human beings, they should also not eat animals since the only difference between animals and human beings is in reasoning and intelligence (Pollan).

Singers Arguments for Animal Rights
The nub of Singers arguments on the rights of animals rests on the premise of equality. He perceives equality as a good moral idea but not a representation of real facts in life The real fact is that everybodys interests deserve an equal consideration, not considering what capabilities they possess.

The fact that one human being possesses a higher level of intelligence cannot entitle him to take advantage of another fellow human being with a lesser degree of intelligence. He argues that since human beings are not factually equal, (some are better looking, smarter or more gifted than others) they are not entitled to exploit nonhumans for the reason that they are not equal to them (Pollan).

Pollans Central Claim Versus Singers Argument
According to Pollan, Singers idea is for one thing, a kind of cultural confusion. He claims that it is completely impossible to treat primates like humans because they are simply chimp and not humans However, Singer counters this by pointing out that there is no difference between denying a chimpanzee its moral consideration and excluding slaves because they are not white if excluding black slaves is considered racism, so is the exclusion of primates. Pollan also disagrees with Singer by pointing out that unlike human beings, animals prey on fellow animals they should not be treated more fairly that they treat each other. Singer on the same point counters this argument using the law of natural order. He suggests that humans dont have to eat others for survival but animals do (Pollan).

He agrees with Singer that it is impossible to deny the fact that humans owe animals that suffer pain some moral consideration and as such, it is hard to justify eating them. However in his view, it is the intensity of the suffering that makes the difference between killing animals and human beings. Unlike animals, human suffering is intensified by loss, worry, emotions, shame, regret, self-pity, dread and humiliation. For instance, castration is painful to both humans and animals yet animals get over it easily but humans cannot Man is able to figure out the aftermath and full repercussions of castration while animals cannot (Pollan).

Using various illustrations such as the Good Farm and the Poyface Farm, Pollan presents the whole idea of animal rights a parochial idea which can only subsist in world where human beings have lost true contact with reality and animals are no longer a threat to human life. He justifies that human beings are entitled to eat animals because it is part of their evolutionary heritage which is evident in the design of the digestion system and teeth.  What is important to Pollan is treating animals with decent welfare concern but not arguing that they should not be eaten. He suggests that in treating animals fairly, people should limit the kind of meat they eat to nonindustrial animals and by so doing, human beings will continue eating animals, but with a sense of consciousness, and respect to animals (Pollan)