Is killing animals wrong? This is an issue currently under discussion. In the world there are people who kill animals to eat them while there are others who believe that it is inhumane to kill defenseless animals. There are many factors why animals are killed. For example, animals suffering from a disease, animals that have proven to be dangerous around us, for food and to keep the animal population in balance. Some argue that killing animals for food is not the only way to feed us, since we produce vegetation. These people think that animals should have the same rights as humans. People feel this way because they believe that animals feel everything we feel, such as pain, loss, and other things. Peter Singer seems to agree with these people. He thinks that animals are aware of their feelings and what is happening to them. Singer believes that there should be some equality between humans and animals. He says that every being has the capacity to suffer and that is what makes it wrong to hurt animals. Singer says: 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 suffering be counted in the same way as the similar suffering – however crude comparisons may be made – of any other being. If a being is not capable of suffering, nor of experiencing enjoyment or happiness, there is nothing to take into account. This is why the limit of sentience (using the term as a convenient, if not strictly accurate, shorthand for the capacity to suffer or experience enjoyment or happiness) is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interests of others ... middle of paper... almost as much as the pain of a human being. To which he says that simply because they don't speak, doesn't change the fact that they don't react in exactly the same way a human would. People say that animals are not capable of having minds as powerful as humans because they don't have knowledge or memory like we do, so they don't anticipate or agonize over things that might happen in the future. Therefore, he compares an animal to a mentally disabled person. Which states that most humans wouldn't think it's okay for scientists to experiment on humans even though they're basically saying that mental capacity defines whether a person suffers or not. Finally, while killing for food, if necessary for survival, isn't wrong, it doesn't make it right either. He thinks that just because something is natural doesn't mean it's justifiable.