Singer's Position Analysis

Words: 499
Pages: 2

Personally, my position related more along the lines of Paul Taylor’s position and a little bit with Singer’s position. Those positions are based off the lines of: organisms have the ability to have worth (Taylor) and an organism has the possibility to hold ethical on its ability to feel pain (Singer). Which to me makes a lot of sense. Depending on the situation, organisms should have the ability to hold worth, as well as if something has ability to feel pain, then that thing can be greater impacted by the outcome of a decision than something that cannot feel pain. But we also need to be aware of the organisms contribution to the part of society they are in, because, sometimes pain isn’t everything.
A problem I do have with Singer’s reasoning for qualifying an organism for ethical standing is that there are numerous organisms that cannot feel pain, but if we get rid of them or completely forget about them when making a decision, we could create more damage than there was to begin with.
…show more content…
Because in my theory everything does have a chance at having standing, it just depends what is going on. For example, if we were trying to determine whether or not it was in interest to the trees to keep people from cutting them down and building a shopping mall; we would need to keep in mind the interest of the trees and all the organisms who thrive off of the existence of trees in that particular area. Meaning that, in this case, marine life would not be something that has a particular standing. They would not be effected by this decision either way the decision goes. The only group of things that would not have standing in my view would be inanimate objects such as pens, pencils, houses, cars, buildings, ect. Those objects have a valued worth to humans and some organisms, but they don’t get effected by the decisions we