Somewhere in the middle

As far as the status of animals is concerned, I lie somewhere between Kant and Singer in my opinions. Kant’s argument that humans are superior to animals because we have the capacity to reason and make logical decisions is a valid point. However, I think he does not give animals as much credit as they deserve; we should respect animals as beings outside of how mistreatment of them may reflect on us as moral people. As Singer points out, animals feel pain, and experience fear and discomfort and this is a valid reason to consider their interests. Nevertheless, I do not agree with Singer that we need to grant animals equality or that we should not use them for dietary purposes. Animals may experience basic emotions, but they do not have the complex range that humans do, and though there are basic similarities between some animals and humans, there are also significant differences. The differences are our abilities to think rationally (as Kant points out) and our abilities to make moral determinations. These differences place us above animals. As far as consuming animals is concerned, the current system that cages animals, treats them horribly and then slaughters them is atrocious. They deserve more than a life in a tiny cage. I admire people who do not eat meat for this reason. However, I think it is morally acceptable to use animals as food as long as they do not suffer. Additionally, the planet could not provide enough food to sustain the entire population if everyone were to cease consumption of animal products. There are concerns about adequate agricultural production as it is. Overall, people should respect and avoid harming animals as much as possible, but animals are not equal and human lives have more value.