Singer’s objective is to show that other species of animals other than the human species are worth the basic principle of equality. He concedes that there are important differences between humans and other animals. This is where he demonstrates an aspect of his individualistic approach. He continues, “and these differences must give rise to some differences in the rights that each have”(Singer 27). He then uses the Women’s Liberation movement and their pursuit of equality between the sexes as

“Many feminists hold that woman have the right to an abortion on request. It does not follow that since these same people are campaigning for equality between men and women they must support the right of men to have abortions too. Since a man cannot have an abortion, it is meaningless to talk of his right to have one. Since a pig can’t vote, it is meaningless to talk of its right to vote. There is no reason why either Women’s Liberation or Animal Liberation should get involved in such nonsense. The extension of the basic principle of equality from one group to another does not imply that we must treat both groups in exactly the same way, or grant exactly the same rights to both groups” (Singer 27-28).

In summary, two very significant ideas of thought dealing with animal rights and seeking to extend moral consideration to include animals are utilitarianism and deontology. Peter Singer, Tom Regan and Kenneth Goodpaster, all seek to extend moral considerably on the grounds that there is no clear-cut criteria to differentiate between humans and non-human animals that is morally relevant. Though they fail to form a comprehensive ethic for the security of rights for animals, it does help increase the empathy that humans feel for the suffering of others as an important reminder of morality. These newly formed philosophies on animal rights help individuals form their own moral values, which include their relationship with non-human animals. It is ultimately up to the individual how they may treat animals.

All three writers had both similar and unique individualistic approaches to the predicaments of the animal rights question. Singer, Regan and Goodpaster all had arguments against specieism, humanism and anthropocentric ideology. They all analyzed what should be criteria for a being, such as a cat, to have basic rights not to suffer, and/or be killed for use by humans. The authors analyzed the framework for the bases of human rights and found that several criterions could also be applied to animals other than humans.

Tom Regan, another philosopher of animal ethics also displays an individualistic approach. Regan has modified Kant’s philosophy to declare that everyone is subject to life. He believes that animals and humans all have intrinsic value; therefore they have a

Some topics in this essay:
Kenneth Goodpaster, Peter Singer, Regan Goodpaster, Tom Regan, Wrongs Regan, Secondly Regan, Morally Considerable, Animal Liberation, Women’s Liberation, , animal rights, moral consideration, regan 52, individualistic approach, animals humans, rights animals, “the total, principle equality, kenneth goodpaster, harm humans, singer regan goodpaster, free harm humans, basic principle equality, own moral values, form own moral,