This essay stresses that human beings have no known form of direct duty to the animals. Only an individual who has a moral duty cannot be able to have a moral obligation. From the above understanding, animals have no moral duty and hence, no moral obligation. Both human beings and animals would have interest but the interests of human beings in the social contract theory override those of the animals. As such, if the human beings have an interest to kill and eat animals, that interest would be morally justified and it would override the interests that animals have to stay alive. No morals would have been broken in this case.
This paper makes a conclusion that only rational beings can be in a position to enter into a social contract. Those beings that are not rational, that is the animals, lack this standing. The rational beings have moral duties and responsibilities that they are required to adhere to. On the contract, animals lack these moral duties and responsibilities. It would, therefore, be proper to argued that animals have no moral standing whatsoever and they cannot take part in a social contract. The form of protection given to human beings under the social contract by the government cannot possibly be given to the animals as well. The animals are still in a state of nature and they have no moral values guiding their day to day activities.