Editing Right to life (section)

== Animals ==
{{See also|Ethics of eating meat|Sentiocentrism|Argument from marginal cases}}
In ''[[Animal Liberation (book)|Animal Liberation]]'', [[Peter Singer]] writes that the killing of animals for the consumption of their meat should be seen as immoral and a violation of their right to life. He holds that rights should be based on sentience, rather than species membership.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Singer |first=Peter |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UYLAsgEACAAJ |title=Animal Liberation |date=2015 |publisher=Bodley Head |isbn=978-1-84792-384-4 |pages=49–53 |language=en}}</ref>

Numerous authors have invoked the [[argument from marginal cases]] to argue that animals should have similar moral status to human infants, senile people, the [[Coma|comatose]], and [[Cognition|cognitively]] disabled people.<ref>[http://www.iep.utm.edu/anim-eth/#SSH3ai Animals and Ethics – Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]</ref><ref>Regan, Tom "An examination and defense of one argument concerning animal rights", ''Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy'' 22, 1979, 189–219</ref><ref>Pluhar, E. ''Beyond Prejudice: The Moral Significance of Human and Nonhuman Animals'', Durham: Duke University Press, 1995</ref><ref name="Horta 2014">Horta, Oscar. "The Scope of the Argument from Species Overlap", ''Journal of Applied Philosophy'', 31, 2014, 142-154.</ref>

A 2020 survey of 1812 published English-language philosophers found that 48% said it was permissible to eat animals in ordinary circumstances, while 45% said it was not.<ref name="Weinberg 2021">{{cite web |author=Justin Weinberg |date=2021-11-01 |title=What Philosophers Believe: Results from the 2020 PhilPapers Survey |url=https://dailynous.com/2021/11/01/what-philosophers-believe-results-from-the-2020-philpapers-survey/ |access-date=2021-12-31 |website=Daily Nous}}</ref>