Singer and Regan both presented arguments on how we ought to treat animals. This essay will show and compare both these positions corresponding to the differences and similarities of their conclusions and their reasoning used to reach those conclusions.
Singer's argument using liberation movements are valid due to hindsight, and points out the ridiculous views that was once held at that time compared to views of today. Equality and the various levels of equality are excellent arguments when dealing with a cause such as animal rights.
The civil rights movements had equality as a mantra and still maintains that equality is an end goal and achievable. With this end goal comes rights, animal rights, like civil rights need reasoning and advocates whom are willing to change their methods of thinking patterns and put forward views that have sound reasoning and principals that allows others to recognize there is an injustice and changing what has become accepted. Equality is a sound argument to be applied by showing that the lack of equality amongst human and the struggles obtaining that, can be applied to animal rights on the notion that rights be applied to all species.
Speciesism is an arrogant view of human race. We as humans have held dominance to the point that we think we own the animals rights and can do experiments on them at our own will whenever we need to.
Utilitarianism has a place in the animal rights movement. The argument used by those who wish to expand for their purposes a view, that condemns a dominance of animals to meet others needs, is valid for explaining the behaviour as being immoral. There are different views available regarding utilitarianism. One being to point out that just because we have a need to satisfy the human species through maximum satisfaction, that it is okay to treat animals with so much disrespect and allows the use of utilitarian views to be argued as a case for advancing animal rights.
