Singer and Regan’s Approaches to Animal Liberation

Singer makes use of the rights language as shorthand for how we might want to treat other people in his arguments. Instead, singer argues that, when we put the consequences of an act into consideration when judging acts, it will be in order to put the interest of animals, primarily their interested to prevent any suffering, to have the same consideration to the same interest put on humans. That is to say, where one individual suffering either human or non-human is considered equal to that of any other, there is no reason that can justify one to put more weight to one of them. On the other hand, Regan’s approaches concerning animal rights are not driven by the ultimate consequences of the actions. Regan firmly holds the belief that animals are what he is referring as the “subjects of a life”, for that reason who has the moral rights, and for that reason, their moral rights should not be ignored as such. He argues that animals do have one moral right and even a legal one, and they should not be as anyone’s property.
Singers approach of utilitarian means that he is judging the "rightest" of any act by the consequences it attracts. Specifically by the extent that the act tries to bring satisfaction to the things that are affected, maximizing on the pleasures developed and pain minimization. Other forms of utilitarianism do exist such as rule utilitarianism. This rule tries to judge the rightness of any action basing on the usual consequences of whichever the moral rule the act has been practiced.
According to Singer’s grounds, he clearly states that there exists no moral ground when an individual fails to give equal consideration of rights that hang to the interests of both non-humans and humans.&nbsp.