Animal ethics is concerned with moral issues regarding animals, while environmental ethics is concerned with moral issues of 'environment. The existence of animal ethics depends on the existence of environmental ethics. Philosophers such as Singer, Regan, and Goodpaster have an individualistic approach to animal rights and moral ethics. They limit themselves to animal concerns without considering the environment as a whole. They also deal with individual rights versus collective rights. Individualists are concerned with the rights of the individual as opposed to the rights of the majority. Each philosopher has his or her own individualistic approach to the question of whether or not animals have rights. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay The singer's goal is to show that other species of animals other than the human species are worthy of the fundamental principle of equality. He admits that there are important differences between humans and other animals. This is where he demonstrates an aspect of his individualistic approach. He continues, and these differences must give rise to differences in the rights that each person has (Singer 27). He then cites the women's liberation movement and their quest for gender equality as an example. The example is as follows: Many feminists believe that women have the right to abortion on demand. This is not to say that because these same people campaign for equality between men and women, they must also support men's right to abortion. Since a man cannot have an abortion, it makes no sense to talk about his right to have one. Since a pig cannot vote, it makes no sense to talk about its right to vote. There is no reason for Women's Liberation or Animal Liberation to get involved in such nonsense. Extending the fundamental principle of equality from one group to another does not imply that we must treat both groups exactly the same, nor grant exactly the same rights to both groups (Singer 27-28). This is Singer's argument for why. all animals, including non-humans, should benefit from consideration of their fundamental rights. He says we would be on dubious ground if we wanted equal rights for blacks, women, and other oppressed groups of humans while denying equal consideration to nonhumans (Singer 28). Peter Singer makes another good argument for why animals should have rights like any other group of animals, including humans. It uses several arguments from which human rights have been shaped, including racism and sexism. Most of his ideas are based on the utilitarian school of philosophy. To put it in simple terms, a utilitarian is one who believes in the greatest good for the greatest number of people, which seems to contradict their individual approach. Singer says the suffering of animals must be taken into consideration. He states: If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. Whatever the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted on an equal footing with similar suffering... (Singer 37). Singer says the suffering of animals cannot be justified. He states that equality does not depend on intellect, moral ability, physical strength, or similar characteristics (Singer 29). He uses the comparison between a mentally deficient human and an intelligent dog. ThereA mentally disabled person has a basic human right not to be used for scientific experimentation, but this is not the case for an intelligent dog, showing how intelligence is not a logical criterion for judging lower animals and deprive them of rights. Singers' philosophy towards animal rights is limited and individualistic in nature as it does not care about the environment in which animals live. Being utilitarian, other philosophers criticize the utilitarian view expounded by Singer. Regan protests. Utilitarianism has no room for the equal moral rights of different individuals because it has no room for their inherent equal worth. What is valuable to the utilitarian is the satisfaction of an individual's interests, not the individual's interests (Regan 43). Tom Regan, another philosopher of animal ethics, also displays an individualistic approach. Regan modified Kant's philosophy to state that everyone is subject to life. He believes that animals and humans all have intrinsic value; they therefore have the right not to suffer and the right to life. He calls for three changes. The first change is the complete abolition of the use of animals in science. The second is the total dissolution of commercial breeding. The third, the total elimination of commercial and sport hunting (Regan 3). He believes that animals should not be treated solely as resources for humans. Furthermore, he believes that since everyone is subject to a life, people should not believe in contractarianism. Contractarianism states that to acquire morality you must be able to sign and understand a contract and if they cannot sign a contract (i.e. an infant) you are not entitled to morality. morality. In Animal Rights, Human Wrongs, Regan examines three points of view. implying constraints within which animals can possibly be treated. He found that all three accounts, Kantian, cruel and utilitarian, lacked valid elements. He states: “We then consider an account attributing rights to animals, a position which responds to the objections which were fatal to the views examined earlier (Regan 52). The Kantian account does not take into account the concept of rights, but emphasizes the moral status of animals in their own right (Regan 52). Kant's philosophy said in short that if a human mistreated animals, he might eventually begin to mistreat humans. Second, Regan states, unlike cruelty analysis, rights analysis does not confuse the morality of actions with the mental state of agents (Regan 52). Finally, he asserts, and unlike utilitarianism, this explanation closes the door to the justification of prejudices which are content to bring about the best consequences (Regan 52). Regan emphasizes individuals rather than the collective whole. He concludes that animals should have basic inheritance rights, just like humans. Human beings have a moral obligation to change the way non-humans are treated. Kenneth Goodpaster wrote his work, On Being Morally Considerable, also from an individualist perspective, although he believes that moral consideration is more complex than the simple individual paradigm. Goodpaster states: “These developments highlight the importance of clarity about the framework of moral consideration as much as the application of that framework (Goodpaster 57). In other words, Goodpaster tells us that we need to better understand and explore the entities that constitute moral consideration. It calls for a move away from our modern moral philosophy based on humanism, exclusively human-centered. Essentially, Kenneth Goodpaster states that.