Throughout recent history, although mostly in contemporary American society, a general topic for moral discussion is the ethical treatment of animals. Much debate has resulted from this topic, with the major question being, "should animal life be given the same respect as human life." In this essay, I shall argue to defend the view that all life is worthy of respect, life including those species extending beyond that of Homo sapiens.
             Although mostly considered to be a modern topic, philosophers such as Descartes and Kant and the philosophical theory of the social contractarians have expressed opinion in this matter. Rene Descartes held the belief that animals are no more than highly complex machines, therefore lacking all consciousness as well as the ability to feel pain, pleasure, etc. And because of this fact, they do not deserve our respect. He believed that when we kick the dog and it yelps, the yelping is not because we kicked the dog and it is in pain, but simply an act harmoniously coincided with our action of kicking it. A similar view is held by social contract theorists. Since their moral theory holds the idea that one gets rights by agreeing to an unwritten social contract, animals are not entitled to any of these rights as they are incapable of agreeing to this contract, or even understanding it. The philosopher Kant also agreed that we as humans have no direct duties toward animals; although he did believe in our indirect duties toward them, meaning to respect them in regard to their relationship with other people: I have a duty not to harm your dog because it is your property, and harming it would therefore harm you in some way.
             But however well these points are argued or related, I am inherently inclined to disagree that humans are the only beings to merit respect of life. Peter Singer, an ethicist supporting this idea, (although perhaps somewhat extremely), conveys his beliefs through his argum...