This means that Regan advocates for the abolishment of the use of animals as resources regardless of the means in which they are made comfortable; hence, his position is reasonable. Whereas Singer does place the threshold for the moral ground or consideration of the entity at sentience, Rogan places the morality bar at a higher level, assuming that all animals with desires and particular beliefs ought to be accorded a moral deliberation, without being treated as mere assets or resources that are meant to satisfy the human beings. The major issue of controversy is how the term equality has been perceived by the two philosophers. Therefore, in order to understand the whole essence of equality among human beings and animals, Singer affirms that, “a liberation movement demands an expansion of our moral horizons and an extension or reinterpretation of the basic moral principle of equality” (Singer 71). It ought to be understood that although Singer does not claim that animals should be treated as human beings in all cases, he argues that their interests deserve an equal measure of consideration. Singer claims that moral equality should not be merely based on factual equality since even human beings are not in essence the same. However, moral equality should be a means or an ideal on how human beings ought to treat other species that have interest, ensuring that their needs are being considered (Singer 72). Such assertion is not only confusing but dissatisfying, since Singer has failed to explain what equality is. Despite their apparent differences, it is obvious that their arguments are instrumental in transforming the human perception and how they perceive animals.Regan’s criticism of utilitarianism is somewhat convincing. This is because Singer’s defense of animals is likely to lead to absurd conclusions and it is obvious that he is confused on what interests and equality are. In addition, his argument tends to disregard the equal rights and integrity of people. He claims that the ethical choices ought to be based on the level of satisfaction of one’s interest (Singer 72). This means that if people are obliged to take that option into consideration, it is highly likely that circumstances would justify sacrificing innocent civilians for the mere purpose of satisfying the interests of a particular group. Singer doe not simply focus on animals rather he prioritizes on whether or not the frustration
Work CitedSinger, Peter. A Utilitarian Defense of Animal Liberation. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs, 1976.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples