No one is equal.

Peter Singer's write this piece to advocate a liberation movement. He believes that humans particularly view equality with an anthropocentric eye and says that it is now time for this equality be "extended to other species" (169) outside of just our own. I think Singer has a very interesting perspective on this, and has great examples to back up his rhetoric. As he says " it simply is not true that all humans are equal" (170). If equality was based on the actually equality of all human beings, equality of human beings would be impossible to argue. We are not all equal in skills, abilities, intelligence, etc., but knowing this still as Singer draws out does not detain us from holding needs of the intelligent or less equal humans less important.

However, I would argue with this point and say that we do not view ourselves equally as a species. There are many instances in society where we undervalue the needs of others because we feel they are subordinate. I do not believe Singer can accurately suggest humanity believes in equality among our own society, because we are all self-interested and do not necessarily consider the needs and interests of others at all. We hold are selves higher than any other. Therefore, when animals promote our own well-being, humans are also likely to view their needs more important than a fellow human's who we feel to be less important than our selves.

Although, I personally do believe that animals should be considered in the actions we daily take, I am not convinced this can be done through Singer's idea of spreading equality to species outside of our own. I think we already do this, in so long as it benefits our individual good. I think the solution still lies in detoxing humans of their anthropocentric views, in order for any advances at all to be made in respecting animals and other humans for that matter.