The ideas of michael pollan

Word count: 555 words Introduction As how the Pollan understood Peter Singer’s book, “ Animal Liberation”, Singer’s position stands against the term which he coined as speciesism where discrimination for animals is showed. Singer defends that the animals deserve an equal treatment with that of how humans are treated because animals experience sufferings as well. He puts on a highlight that all creatures have the ability to feel pain and deserve to have a fair consideration. A lesser consideration on the creatures that have wings or fur is more likely comparable to the race discrimination. Specifically, Singer dissents the idea that animals should be treated according to their level of enduring pain than on their level of thinking it is because there are humans who have got lower capacities of thinking and thus this suggests that animals have the right to be treated like humans.
Discussion
In response to Peter Singer’s book, Michael Pollan argues with the idea of comparing humans to animals. Although Singer is aware of what rights the animals have, it does not mean that the level of consideration should be matched to how humans are treated. He had visited different farms and wrote the essay with conviction through the researchers that he made. Discussing a many points with regard to Singer’s point of view, Pollan is able to centralize the theme of his argument through defending that humans have higher level of consideration and rights than animals. Dissenting Singer’s comparison, Pollan offered a way on how to look at this point by saying that human’s level of existence is incomparable to the lower classes of creatures. Humans have specific set of rights from the animals and these ideas should be the first to put up. Treating animals the way they should be treated is a good thing though but it does not merely means that they should be treated like humans. Animals are unaware that they hurt each other unlike humans who have souls and feelings. What should be given much attention is the way people mistreat the animals just like tail- docking and beak- clipping because it makes the animals feel the pain while they live.
Utilitarianism, philosophically, accounts to the inclusion of non-humans to people are depicted to be abandoned by Pollan through his statements. It is explicitly discussed that Pollan is not on the side of considering animal rights as how the humans enjoy manly treatment with each other. Basically, instead of leveling the animals to humans, people should seek for animal welfare and be able to respond on the needs of the animals in order to treat them accordingly. Killing animals and eating meat, in fact, according to Pollan could help animals because it will lessen their sufferings. Instead of living in a farm or in a cage where a bird could hardly stretch its wings, it is better to put it to an end.
Conclusion
Generally, the ideas of Michael Pollan are more acceptable because of being true to what reality calls for. It should be noticed that treating animals like humans is quite a tough one because human discrimination prevails anywhere and still has to be given ample solutions. It is not a good idea to compare animals to humans because people have a higher level than animals do. Pollan is indeed right and justifiable on giving animal welfare instead.
Reference
Pollan, M. (2002). “ An Animal’s Place”, The New York Times from April 13, 2009.