Animal ethics deals with moral issues concerning animals, while environmental ethics deals with 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 to the topic of animal rights and moral ethics. They limit themselves to the concerns of animals 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 the majority. Each philosopher has his own individualistic approach to the question of whether or not animals have rights. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Singers goal is to demonstrate that other species of animals other than the human species hold the fundamental principle of equality. He admits that there are important differences between humans and other animals. This is where he demonstrates one aspect of his individualistic approach. And it continues, and these differences must give rise to some differences in the rights that each person has (Singer 27). She then uses the women's liberation movement and their quest for gender equality as an example. The example is this: many feminists believe that women have the right to have an abortion on request. It does not follow that because these same people fight for equality between men and women, they should also support men's right to have an abortion. Since a man cannot have an abortion, it makes no sense to talk about his right to have an abortion. Since a pig cannot vote, it makes no sense to talk about its right to vote. There is no reason why either Women's Liberation or Animal Liberation should be involved in this nonsense. Extending the fundamental principle of equality from one group to another does not imply that we must treat both groups exactly the same, or grant exactly the same rights to both groups (Singer 27-28). This is Singer's argument for why all animals, including non-human ones, should have basic rights in mind. He says we would be on dubious ground if we wanted equal rights for blacks, women, and other oppressed groups of humans while at the same time denying equal consideration to nonhumans (Singer 28). Peter Singer makes another good argument for why animals should have rights like any other group of animals including humans. It uses several topics on which human rights were modeled, including racism and sexism. Most of his ideas are based on the utilitarian school of philosophy. A utilitarian is, to put it simply, one who believes in the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people, which seems to contradict his individual approach. Singer says animal suffering should be taken into consideration. He states: If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to consider that suffering. Whatever the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with similar suffering…(Singer 37). Singer argues that animal suffering cannot be justified. He states that equality does not depend on intellect, moral capacity, physical strength, or similar characteristics (Singer 29). Use the comparison between a mentally challenged human and an intelligent dog. The mentally handicapped person has the fundamental human right not to be used for scientific experiments, buthowever, the intelligent dog is not, thus demonstrating that intelligence is not a logical criterion for judging inferior animals and depriving them of their rights. The singers' philosophy towards animal rights is limited and individualistic in nature because it does not care about the environment in which the animals live. Being utilitarian, other philosophers criticize the utilitarian point of view expounded by Singer. Regan Protests The utilitarian has no room for the equal moral rights of different individuals because he has no room for their equal value or intrinsic value. What is of value to the utilitarian is the satisfaction of an individual's interests, not the individual whose interests they are (Regan 43). Tom Regan, another philosopher of animal ethics, also shows an individualistic approach. Regan modified Kant's philosophy to declare that all are subject to life. He believes that animals and humans all have intrinsic value; they therefore have the right not to suffer and the right to life. He asks for three changes. The first change is the total abolition of the use of animals in science. The second is the total dissolution of commercial animal agriculture. The third, The Total Elimination of Commercial and Sport Hunting (Regan 3). He believes that animals should not be treated only as resources for humans. Furthermore, he believes that since everyone is subject to a life, people should not believe in contractualism. Contractualism states that to achieve morality you must be able to sign and understand a contract and if they cannot sign a contract (e.g. a child) you have no right to morality. In Animal Rights, Human Wrongs, Regan examines three views that entail constraints under which animals can possibly be treated. He found that all three accounts, Kantian, cruelty, and utilitarian, lacked valid components. He states: Let us then consider an account that ascribes rights to animals, a position that satisfies objections that were fatal to the views examined above (Regan 52). Kantian theory does not consider, rights theory insists on the moral status of animals as such (Regan 52). Kant's philosophy succinctly said that if a human mistreated animals, they might eventually begin to mistreat humans. Second, Regan claims that, unlike the cruelty account, the rights account does not confuse the morality of acts with the mental states of agents (Regan 52). Finally he states that, unlike utilitarianism, this account closes the door to justifying biases that simply lead to the best consequences (Regan 52). Regan places emphasis on individuals rather than the collective whole. He concludes that animals should have basic inheritance rights, as should humans. Individual humans have a moral obligation to change the way nonhumans are treated. Kenneth Goodpaster also wrote his On Being Morally Considerable from an individualistic perspective, although he believes that moral consideration is more complex than the simple individual paradigm. Goodpaster states: These developments highlight the importance of clarity on the framework of moral consideration as much as on the application of that framework (Goodpaster 57). In other words, Goodpaster is telling us that we need to better understand and explore the entities that form moral consideration. He argues for a move away from our modern moral philosophy based on humanism, which focuses exclusively on human beings. In essence, Kenneth Goodpaster states that nothing less than the condition of being alive seems to me to be a plausible and non-arbitrary criterion for moral consideration (Goodpaster 58). All three writers had.