Peer Comment Response

Peer Comment Response

PEER COMMENT RESPONSE 2

PeerComment Response

PeerReview

Iconcur with your assertion that human beings and animals haveinterests that qualify them deserve to deserve respect. This argumentis in congruence with the argument by Peter Singer. Your assertionabout Singer’s principle of equality brings out the perspective ofutilitarianism. I think that Singer was right in the argument becausethere is no being that does not deserve respect. I also think thatthe argument is a good correction for all human beings as we tend tothink that we deserve better respect than animals. Our wrongperspective is because of the fact that we feel more superior toother beings. Your response is enlightening in the understanding ofSinger’s argument better.Ialso concur with your view that animals should be treated well and ina humane way. I agree with your advice that human beings should dowhat is ethical and good for the environment. This is informed bySinger`s views of animal rights from a utilitarian perspective. Thisis because Singer believes that it is ethical for all beings to beconsidered to have interests and rights just like human beings have.Your explanation of the Singer’s comparison of animal rights withthose of women brings out the argument that is based onutilitarianism.In my opinion, I think Singerwent overboard in comparing women and minority rights with those ofanimals. This is because minority rights are abused by the majorityhuman beings, while animal rights are abused by almost all people.Therefore, I think animal rights should be addressed in a differentview that recognizes the difference between animals and human beings.However, I agree with Singer’s argument that animals deserverespect because they have interests, just like human beings.