I'm an academic at heart, and if there's anything I enjoy wholeheartedly, it's theory. This is why I actually have a great admiration for Peter Singer; as a moral philosopher, he not only proves to the world that philosophy is still indeed useful, but is also able to bring theory outside the realm of academia and into the world to affect change.

As a lifelong vegetarian, my respect for Peter Singer only increased when I first learned about him in my Faith and Critical Reasoning theology class at Fordham. When my professor, who is quite well known himself, first taught us about Singer, I was immediately impressed and was moved to read more of his work.

Singer is the author of a number of books, and while I don't necessarily agree with him on other issues, such as his views on altruism or disability, I do consider him a modern icon in terms of the animal rights debate.

Why?

Singer was the first to coin the term "speciesism," which refers to the nearly universal assumption that humans are the superior race of creatures on planet Earth. Speciesism, in his eyes, is exactly the kind of belief that leads humans to justify killing or exploiting animals. In that sense, it is because they are "lesser" than us that their lives are not worth nearly as much as our own.

A prime example of speciesism was the death of Harambe the gorilla some time ago. There was inevitably, a lot of people saying there shouldn't have even been a "choice" to make between a human and a gorilla, and others outright saying that a child's life was more valuable than some wild beast.

Singer condemns this but also goes on to question people who are upset by the loss of Harambe while being a meat eater. In fact, he wrote an LA Times article where he first denounced the terminology used for Harambe. Instead of calling the gorilla victim by its name, like we would've had a human had been the victim, journalists often resorted to calling Harambe "it" or "the gorilla that" instead of "the gorilla who," denying him personhood.

That brings me to another reason why I love Peter Singer. Certainly, there is no question as to what qualifies a human for his or her rights. Any infant born to a human couple has the right to live.

Singer doesn't want to give animals 'human rights,' he wants to give them 'person' rights. Personhood can be constructed around any number of things: a person's ability to think, feel, object, etc. There are, after all, animals that exhibit an extraordinary level of intelligence or capacity for feeling. We keep pets like dogs or cats for this exact reason, but we don't seem to realize that pigs or cows or monkeys are also conscious creatures that feel serious pain when they're hurt.

However, Singer also makes a very controversial comparison that I personally find extremely compelling. If a human baby were mentally disabled, we wouldn't base its continued existence around its intelligence. Few people would want to see such a child killed on such a basis because it would be barbaric.

If we applied that same thinking to animals, why should we continue to base our idea of personhood and value around intelligence? Why should a horse be able to count or a cow be able to think in order for us to assign their lives value? They are just as intrinsically valuable as we are as humans. To quote Singer himself, "If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit nonhumans?"

Singer's most enduring contribution to the diet debate is not the question "Are they [the animals] human?" but "Can they suffer?"

I'm very much inclined to say, yes, they do suffer. Whether factory farming or free range, animals that are bred to die as food do struggle tremendously. In fact, in a recent video I watched, Holocaust survivors themselves argue that "for the animals, it [factory farms] are an eternal Treblinka."

That may sound like another extreme or disturbing comparison to make, but if you really think about it, it's quite relevant. Livestock are crowded into cattle cars, made to live in unsanitary and confined quarters, live under the constant stress and threat of death, and have no agency in the matter. "To them [the animals]," survivor and Nobel Laureate Isaac Singer says, "All people are Nazis." To them, we are all tormentors, exterminators.

As a Hindu, I believe the foremost principle of living a kind and good life is following the way of 'ahimsa,' which refers to a path guided by compassion and non-violence. This path requires that we do as little harm as we can.

When alternative options are available to us, why do we allow animals to suffer such atrocities? There are certain scenarios where, yes, people may require meat or animal products to live--those who are poorer may not have access to vegetables and fruits and other non-meat products, and those who are ill or cannot adapt to the diet in a health sense are of course excepted.

What I cannot and will not condone, like Singer, is those who have the explicit option to do otherwise and condemn such torment but choose not to on the basis of 'taste' or 'social norms.'

All things considered, I have great admiration for Peter Singer and others like him who are trying so hard to get us to see ourselves for what we are AND to see animals for what they are.