There is no doubting the fact that animals do not have rights in the conventional sense, or in any other sense for that matter. The reason is because they are not moral agents; they cannot do things out of a sense of right or wrong and cannot reason, as opposed to humans. Without reasoning, they are unable to have rights and therefore, are not responsible. Does that mean humans have the right to treat animals badly? Of course not; but that is for humans to decide, because animals cannot decide anything.
In "An Animal's Place," Michael Pollan introduces Peter Singer's argument, which is simple and difficult to argue against. Based on equality, every one realizes that people are not equal at all: "Some are smarter than others, better looking, and more gifted." (Pollan 2). The idea in understanding is to realize that " everyone's interests should receive equal consideration, regardless of what abilities they may possess." (Pollan 2). This is where the questions and the problems actually begin. If one individual has more intelligence and uses another individual for his own purpose, how can we not use animals for the exact same purpose? .
Michael Pollan questions the ethics of eating meat and inquires about the way meat is processed in today's society. Pollan states that the meat we eat "comes from the grocery store, where it is cut and packaged to look as little like parts of animals as possible." (Pollard 2). The article is interesting because it looks at two sides of an argument that apparently has no end in sight. In addition, it is written by an individual who is an animal rights activist and also a meat-eater. Pollan has "taken a look" and given thought to a lot of issues and has arrived at the following conclusion: There is an alternative to both vegetarianism and "looking the other way" as regards meat production, that will allow him to go on eating meat, while refraining from participating in a system which subjects animals to huge cruelties in order to place them on people's plates.