Treatment of Animals: Peter Singer and Tom Regan

All animals are equal: Peter singer (utili) 

The basic principle of equality should be extended to animals as well YET this is stance is met with resistance as some argue that animals and humans differ and hence rights are only for humans. 

REPLY: Singer states that even though there are differences between the two these difference should not cause one to lose thier rights. Just means that the rights they get need to be different and adapted to thier situation. 

Why include animals?: 

1) Animals have pleasure and pain hence they to are sentient beings

Bentham: " the question is not, Can they reason?nor can they talk? but , can they suffer?"

• The vital characteristic that gives a being the right to equal consideration is it's suffering

2) Cant use a criteria to cause one to be better than another

"if possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his own ends,how can it entitle humans to exploit nonhumans?"

3) Utilitarianism requires impartiality: no one is higher than another

Yet there is a clause in which individuals are allowed to kill an animal for food, this comes when the animal has been living  a pleasent life and is painlessly killed for the benefit of a needy person. 

• Bring about the greatest good?

There is an objection in that if it is okay for individuals to kill for survival then other moral violations can occur. 

The case for animal rights: Regan ( deontologist) 

The fundamentally wrong thing is that the system causes us to view animals as resources,here for us to be eaten or to be used for our benefit. There needs to be a total dissolution of commercial animal agriculture

Indirect view:

The duty we have is not to the animal itself but to the person who cares about them, they are under a guardian.Hence animals that are not cared for…