The inevitability of animal rights ideology is the question of euthanasia of humans.
If the human-animal border falls, but the same right to life can not apply to all animals from the mosquito to the elephant, certain criteria must be used to determine who is to be considered valuable and who is not or fewer. This applies to humans as well as animals. The bioethicist Peter Singer expresses openly this logical consequence of the animal rights as one of the few activists of the scene.
For example, he explains, that there are some people who are clearly below the level of consciousness, self-awareness, intelligence, and sensitivity of many non-human beings. He talks about people with severe and irreparable brain damage and also human infants. He was quoted saying, he would not want his insurance contributions to increase so that children without a chanceof quality of life get expensive treatments. And he also said if members of our own species we could no longer say that lives of people, who don’t show human characteristics, are always to be preferred to other animals. After Singer pointed out, groups of people with disabilities, who, whenever he appeared publicly in Europe, organized protests against him.
Although many animal rights organizations dissociate themselves from Singer, his influence as the founder of this movement and as a philosophical founder is enormous. When he received, in Berlin in the spring of 2015, the Peter Singer Award for “Animal Suffering Reduction Strategies”, not only disabled associations and leftist anti-fascists, but also members of the animal rights scene, such as the animal protection party, demonstrated against Singer. The fact that advocacy of animal rights, which means the abolition of the human-animal border, necessarily leads to positions such as the Singers is denied by many animal rights activists.
