Final answer:
Dr. Peter Singer compares the movement for women's rights to the animal liberation movement, suggesting that the same arguments against oppression and for equality apply to animals, advocating for equal rights across species.
Step-by-step explanation:
Dr. Peter Singer makes comparisons between the movement for women's rights and the animal liberation movement by examining the philosophical underpinnings behind the recognition of rights for previously marginalized groups. He draws a parallel between the historical arguments used to justify the exclusion of women from voting rights and the treatment of animals in society. Singer's argument for animal rights suggests that just as women were once considered inferior and denied rights on arbitrary grounds, animals are similarly denied rights based on speciesist arguments. These comparisons are used to challenge societal norms and question the justification behind denying rights to animals when similar arguments against women's rights have been proven to be unjust.
The animal liberation movement, as proposed by Singer, uses the assessment of the intrinsic value of living beings and the rejection of hierarchies based on species to argue for the equal consideration of interests across species. This means that the suffering of animals should weigh equally with the suffering of humans, leading to the conclusion that animals, like humans, should have rights protected by governmental and societal institutions. Through his comparisons, Singer aligns the animal rights movement with the broader historical struggle for justice and equality, thereby framing it as the next logical step in the evolution of liberal, inclusive values.