Animal ethics is concerned with the moral issues concerning animals, whereas environmental ethics concerns itself with the moral issues of the environment. The existence of animal ethics depends on the existence of environmental ethics. Philosophers such as Singer, Regan and Goodpaster have an individualistic approach on the subject of animal rights and moral ethics. They are limited to animal concerns without considering the environment as a whole. They also deal with individual rights as opposed to collective rights. Individualists are concerned with the rights of the individual as opposed to the rights of a majority. Each philosopher has his own individualistic approach to the question of whether or not animals have rights. .
Singer's objective is to show that other species of animals other than the human species are worth the basic principle of equality. He concedes 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 some differences in the rights that each have"(Singer 27). He then uses the Women's Liberation movement and their pursuit of equality between the sexes as an example. The example is this:.
"Many feminists hold that woman have the right to an abortion on request. It does not follow that since these same people are campaigning for equality between men and women they must support the right of men to have abortions too. Since a man cannot have an abortion, it is meaningless to talk of his right to have one. Since a pig can't vote, it is meaningless to talk of its right to vote. There is no reason why either Women's Liberation or Animal Liberation should get involved in such nonsense. The extension of the basic principle of equality from one group to another does not imply that we must treat both groups in exactly the same way, or grant exactly the same rights to both groups" (Singer 27-28).