Relationship between Animals and Humans: Similarities and Differences

This article compares the views of Peter Singer and Vicki Hearne on animal rights and dignity. Singer suggests that the present value for human life and the demeaning of the nonhuman animals is a show of speciesism and proposes a graduated view of morality for humans and nonhuman animals. Hearne proposes that human rights can only be enjoyed in the context of relationship and that the pet owner is the only one who can give rights to the animal and thus assure his happiness. The article proposes that animal-friendly institutions must establish the framework for the treatment of animals based on both freedom from pain and enhanced happiness.

Surname 1
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Relationship between Animals and Humans
Similarities and Differences
Peter Singer in his article Speciesism and Moral Status compare with Vicki Hearne’s
What’s Wrong with Animal Rights on the theme of the dignity of nonhuman animals. Hearne
talks about the challenge that human rights activists present to pet owners and compares it with
humane movements who propose that pets should not interfere with human happiness. Singer on
the other hand scoffs at the commonly held belief that humans are superior to nonhuman animals
based on cognitive abilities. In jest, he talks about the higher cognitive qualities exhibited by
some animals like dogs, horses and grey parrots that depict higher values of IQ compared to
deranged humans. The two authors talk about animal rights and propose that the contemporary
definitions of animal rights are flawed. Hearne, for instance disagrees with the views represented
by both animal rights activists and humane movements. The animal rights enthusiasts, according
to Hearne, are more preoccupied with avoidance of pain rather than attainment of happiness by
the animals (Hearne 62). The humane movements on the other hand are concerned with human
welfare and condone the killing of animals in order to relieve their suffering. In this regard, the
humane movements are at loggerheads with such professionals like trainers and veterinarians
that concentrate on human happiness.

Surname 2
Singer suggests that the present value for human life and the demeaning of the nonhuman
animals is a show of speciesism and suggests an alternative view rather than cognition. He
disagrees with the religious view that man should have higher respect because of the immortality
of his soul, the command by the creator for man to exercise dominion over nonhumans and the
view that man was created in the image of God, a privilege animals do not enjoy (Singer 571).
While citing the Popes view that all humans are equal regardless of their status in life, Singer
says that the statement connotes that all humans are superior to nonhumans. Furthermore he
disagrees with the proposition that humans have an intrinsic dignity and this forms the parameter
for their superiority. Singer postulates that such thinking has led to the protection of human life
through condemnation of euthanasia and abortion while there is silence regarding the numerous
animals that are killed for food (Singer 577). In this regard, Singer proposes a graduated view of
morality for humans and nonhuman animals.
The two authors have a similar goal which is to change society’s views about the
treatment of animals. Hearne proposes that human rights can only be enjoyed in the context of
relationship and that the pet owner is the only one who can give rights to the animal and thus
assure his happiness. Singer uses more persuasive language and challenges the commonly held
ideas that promote the superiority of man over nonhuman animals. Singer’s language is
provocative and presents alternative views to compel readers to question the basis of society’s
viewpoints on animals.
Critical analysis
He two articles present a challenge to the commonly held ideas about animals in relation
to humans. Singer believes that both animals and humans should be treated using a different

Surname 3
parameter other than cognition. Cognition fails to apply when dealing with deranged human
beings (Lubans et al, 45). Kearne on the other hand believes that the definition of animal rights
should be based on the attainment of their happiness rather than avoidance of pain. Although the
two authors present provocative debates that challenge the treatment of animals by their handlers
and animal-friendly institutions, their views are extreme and do not provide solutions to the
dilemma of the treatment of animals. This analysis is based on the view that man is superior to
animals and that idea that the award of rights to animals should be done by animal friendly
institutions.
Mental illness is a disability and cannot be used as a proof that animals need to enjoy the
same status as humans. The reality is that animals have to undergo training under a human
belong for them to demonstrate some form of intelligence (Roberts 45). In this regard, the
limited instances where nonhuman animals demonstrate intelligence is attributed to the superior
qualities of man. Animals cannot enjoy similar rights and humans and as such, their rights are
determined by humans (De Villiers 420). Kearne’s views that rights are only enjoyed in the
context of a relationship are consistent with the premise that animal rights are a product of
human definition. Nonhumans do not have sufficient capacity to determine their own rights and
as such, they must be formed and protected by humans (Rowlands 76). However, the award of
these rights must not be left to the judgment of individual owners because such arrangements
would lead to subjectivity in the interpretation of rights. Animal-friendly institutions must
therefore establish the framework for the treatment of animals (Kymlicka and Donaldson, 120).
Such awards must be based on both freedom from pain and enhanced happiness.
The proposed graduated system of determining the intelligence of animals in relation to humans
is contrary to the observable qualities among human beings. It is obvious that since historical

Surname 4
times that humans have demonstrated the ability to tame animals and constrain them into some
form of obedience (Alves 223). Humans must therefore continuously take advantage of their
superior qualities to define the rights of animals and enforce them in a way that ensures their
comfort.
Works Cited
Alves, Rômulo Romeu Nóbrega. "Domestication of animals." Introduction to Ethnobiology.
Springer, Cham, 2016. 221-225.
De Villiers, Jan-Harm. "Animal rights theory, animal welfarism and the'new
welfarist'amalgamation: a critical perspective." Southern African Public Law 30.2 (2015):
406-433.
Hearne, Vicki. "What's wrong with animal rights: of hounds, horses, and Jeffersonian
happiness." Harper's Magazine283.1696 (1991): 59-64.
Kymlicka, Will, and Sue Donaldson. "Animal rights, multiculturalism, and the left." Journal of
Social Philosophy45.1 (2014): 116-135.
Lubans, David, et al. "Physical activity for cognitive and mental health in youth: a systematic
review of mechanisms." Pediatrics (2016): e20161642.
Roberts, Linda. "Animal clicker training: promoting positive pet obedience." (2016).
Rowlands, Mark. Animal rights: Moral theory and practice. Springer, 2016.
Singer, Peter. "Speciesism and moral status." Metaphilosophy40.3‐4 (2009): 567-581.