This is a comment writing assignment. need to read the post and then write 300 words reply to the post. Your words is based on the post, and make some analysis and reply to the post.

Here is the post "For this weeks discussion post I wanted to talk about the Immanuel Kant reading and the Peter Singer reading and their opposing views on whether or not animals should be treated as “ends-in-themselves”. After completing both readings, I felt that both authors had compelling arguments, and to be completely honest I found some of the readings harder to understand/relate with. When Singer talks about voting and the liberation of women in comparison to animal rights, he makes sure to demonstrate the fact that equality for animals would come in a form other than voting, because voting is not relevant to animals, the same way some things are not needed by humans that would be for animals. This comparison that Singer gives in the reading made the argument for animal rights much more compelling for me and it made me question, what is it that the animals need exactly to be equal? (Aside from the obvious of not eating them and treating them poorly) The opposing argument comes from Kant who says that animals are not “ends-in-themselves” the way that humans are, and they instead serve an indirect purpose to humans. He goes into more depth in this idea by saying that humans can practice affection towards animals that can later be relayed onto other humans. However, comparing these two ideas, it seems that Kant’s theory is indeed correct, that if humans want to treat animals with kindness and affection, then maybe they would not do the obvious of killing/eating/poor treatment. The way I read Kant’s read made it seem like perhaps he was referring to dogs or animals that you don’t hurt or eat. To me, it seems almost controversial if he says humans are nice to animals as an indirect duty to basically better mankind, but, how nice are humans really to animals at the end of the day? And based on the Singer read, what do animals need to have the equality that Singer argues they deserve? I am interested to hear the classes thoughts on these questions and also whose side you believe more and why. Do you think animals deserve to be treated as “ends-in-themselves” like humans do? Or do you agree with Kant that animals purpose is to serve indirectly to humans. I found these two readings specifically interesting because of the way they oppose each other."