Equality has long been discussed and has been an issue not only between species but also within the human race. Although the situation has changed for humans, it is a completely different story for animals. Animals are treated in many cruel ways, from abandoned pets to breeding and testing them. In this essay I intend to argue that Singer's claim that the principle of equal consideration does not require equal treatment while requiring moral equality between us and animals nevertheless incites equal treatment to achieve moral equality. Although this equal treatment only occurs when relevant interests are considered, the fact that it occurs means that animals are worth to some extent for themselves. Otherwise they would have no interest and we would not have to consider them and how they are affected by our actions. Thus, it is not an ethical position to say that we can achieve the required moral equality through equal consideration without equal treatment for animals. Singer's argument is built around the principle of equal consideration of interests. According to Singer, the principle requires moral equality for nonhuman animals; although it is stated that equal consideration of similar relevant interests does not imply equal treatment. His argument is based on the fact that as long as the being is capable of suffering, we must consider its interests and how they are affected by our actions. Thus, for Singer moral status is achieved through interests. On the contrary, for Singer, if interests are not equal, it is not necessary to treat humans and animals in the same way. So how can we say we have achieved the required moral equality if there is no equal treatment....... middle of paper... perform the same experiments on orphaned disabled humans. An aspect that brings us back to Singer's request for moral equality through the principle of moral consideration in animal experimentation; which cannot be achieved if there is no equal treatment, yet his argument assures that equal consideration does not imply equal treatment. Finally, I can say that Singer's argument certainly helps establish the standard of moral status for all nonhuman animals. However, how these interests should be considered without resulting in equal treatment represents a problematic ethical position since we are unwilling to grant the same considerations to humans under conditions similar to those of non-human animals. Moral equality cannot be achieved without equal treatment, especially in animal experimentation, since we are not willing to do the same with the same human beings, regardless of their condition.