Some of Singer’s theories about equality can therefore be challenged by logic, and not accepted, by people who, for example, see a difference between animals and humans, in terms of the equality applied and implied to them.
When Singer talks about equality, he rejects the traditional Rawls-influenced notion of moral personality and human equality. Singer proposes a broader and more collectivist ethics, and therefore his idea of equality is also broader. However, there needs to be an alternative to this philosophy because it is untenable and seeks a level of sophistication which the author frequently is unable to convey appropriately, as seen by his use in the following sentence of creative semantics within their rhetoric. “The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been witholden from them but by the hand of tyranny (sic). The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor” (Singer, 1989). Singer’s essay, which proposes to have a utilitarian argument structure, is basically all about morality, and it corresponds to the rightness or wrongness of an action that impacts that action’s significance in terms of utility.
This concept of utility has been stretched and formed the main basis for those who would criticize Singer’s embrace of the equality of animals and humans, as a dry and humorless statistical impossibility that drained the imagination out of humanity and based impulse on quasi-scientific ethical propositions. This is a valid criticism in the light of various authors’ use of utilitarianism, but it is also important to keep in mind that utilitarianism is basically a positive principle that lays out a plan for happiness, not equality. In