First, lay out Singer's case for the claim that other animal species should be covered by the same principle of equality that humans extend to other humans, and explain how it fits in with Utilitarian moral theory. Now explain Regan's critique of Singer's position: where does Regan think Singer's argument falls short? Explain why Singer thinks that Utilitarian ethics promotes animal rights, while Regan thinks that neither Utilitarian thinking, nor anthropocentric Kantian ethics, nor ethics based on a principle of non-cruelty is adequate for promoting and protecting animal rights. What is Regan's positive argument for the case of animal rights? What does he say that justifies the claim that humans are obligated to observe the rights of nonhuman animals? Do you find anything compelling in either view? Where does Singer or Regan go wrong, if either does?