This is Singer's argument for why all animals, including non-humans, should have the consideration for basic rights. He says that we would be on dubious ground if we wanted equal rights for blacks, women, and other groups of oppressed humans while denying equal consideration to non-humans (Singer 28).
Peter Singer makes another good argument why animals should have rights like any other group of animals including humans. He uses several arguments from which human rights have been molded from, including racism and sexism. Most of his ideas are built upon the utilitarian school of philosophy. A utilitarian is, to put it in lay terms, one who believes the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people, which does seems to contradict his individual approach. Singer states that the suffering of animals should be taken into consideration. He states, "If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering."(Singer 37). Singer is asserting that the suffering of animals cannot be justified. He states that equality does not depend on intellect, moral capacity, physical strength, or similar characteristics (Singer 29). He uses the comparison of the mentally challenged human to an intelligent dog. The mentally handicapped person has the basic human right not to be used for scientific experimentation, but yet the intelligent dog does not, thus showing how intelligence is not logical criteria for which to judge animals inferior and depriving them of rights.
Singer's philosophy towards animal's rights is limited and individualistic in nature because he is not concerned with the environment in which the animals live. Being utilitarian, other philosophers criticizes the Utilitarian point of view exhibited by Singer.