This section is dedicated to 3 accounts expressing different beliefs and opinions on how animals should be treated. First is the Kantian Account, which states that people who treat animals in harsh ways develop a habit, which, in time, inclines them to treat humans similarly. The argument for this is that there is no rational, unprejudiced way to exclude the interests of nonhuman animals just because they are not the interests of human beings. My personal opinion is that this is mostly untrue as you can get away with it against animals but most realize the situation would be different more times than not if tried on a person.
The second belief is the Cruelty Account, which basically believes any cruelty, or tormenting towards a sentient creature or causing it to suffer is wrong. However, the problem with this is you can't simple say those who cause pain are cruel because many who help people cause pain to do so and are far from cruel. My opinion is that you simply can't be this general and say all pain is cruel, that's just liberal thinking. You must be specific on what kind of pain is cruel and what's not to make a proper evaluation.
The third belief is the Utilitarian Account declares two things. First, that the desires, needs, hopes, etc. of different individuals, when these are of equal importance to these individuals are of equal importance or value no matter who the individuals are. The second principle states we are to act so as to bring about the greatest possible balance of good over evil. As good a point as he makes though, he shows that animals are treated differently than human beings but not that this differential treatment violates either the equality of interests principle or the principle of utility. My opinion on this is that no account or belief is perfect and the Utilitarian Account is, indeed, on to something. It might not be ideal but it's the best of the beliefs, in my view.
