Using PETA as an example of rationality might not be such a good idea.

"PETA's statement is based on two primary assumptions, the first of which is that there is no difference between human beings and animals."
Technically there is no difference since we are animals, but using the intended definition it is not evident from PETA's statement that they see no distinction. Complete equality would obviously be irrational, but it is not necesssary for the existence of animal rights. Singer's comments do not support those assumptions either, he does speak of some animals having a number of similar capabilities that might give rise to issues/preferences/rights but that is not a claim to equality.

"However, while rationality is essential in the formation of an ethical view, it requires certain fundamental assumptions that cannot be conjured out of logic."
I do not think this is true for all ethical systems, ie. if there is no external consequence to being ethical.

"Ethical views require that we understand the nature of the beings involved... Similarly, when they are to do with our treatment of animals we must have more than a superficial or ideological understanding of their nature."
And yet the author doesn't see why Judeo-Christian tradition is rarely considered. If relying on Genesis for knowledge of animal nature isn't superficial & ideological then what is?

"The aims of PETA and the concerns of Peter Singer do not confirm our experience of the world but lead us into a world deprived of the distinctions we need to have in order to act morally."
"What I really mean is that we inherit a tradition of thought that is superior to the rationality of modernism and that this is obvious from the absurdity of such a notion as animal rights derived from the latter."

Something to explain and justify these statements would have been nice. Experience? Need for those distinctions? Absurdity? Ruins of modernism? How can tradition be superior where it is irrational?

The article must be preaching to the choir, who else would be convinced by its flawed, misdirected and theological attacks?

The objectives of PETA have nothing to do for any concern for animals. Such people as PETA and Singer are driven by a profound hatred of the human race and in particular Western Civilisation. Such people feel bad about themselves because they have nothing to be proud of, no real useful talents and make no useful contribution, but rather than try and improve themselves they attack their betters by any low means they can think of. The more they are pandered to the more destructive they will become - like naughty children. They should be treated like the animals they pretend to love so much. Keith

I’d like some clarifications of the assumptions Peter Sellick makes. What does he see as the difference(s) between human and the other animals? How do you rationally make this distinction?

Peter writes that if we do not have an understanding of (animal) nature and rely on the fashion of equalitarianism and the idea of rights, then we will arrive at absurd conclusions. Well yeah maybe, but not all people who believe in animal rights rely on the ‘fashion’ of equalitarianism.

Also, does Peter have an understanding of animal nature that I don't have?

If this argument is only appropriate to the PETA group then fine – big deal – why bother? But it seems to me that the whole animal rights idea is being critiqued.

Perhaps a quick read of “Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals the Call to Mercy,” by Matthew Scully, a special assistant and senior speech writer for George W. Bush (not that this gives him any credibility with me) would help put the issue into perspective.

I think Sellick opening gambit here ("In other words, we are all to be extreme vegans") is unfair. What is extreme about veganism per se?

This is a pretty cheap shot, attempting to paint a broad group of people (but a very small social minority who are easily ridiculed) as "extreme", and not simply extremists because of their worldview, but extremists because of their personal choice to shun food and products produced though cruel practices.

Vegans can fall into a number of camps including those who (yes) equate veganism with direct action (e.g. those beyond PETA who are quite radical and take illegal actions like destroying property) and those who see veganism as a personal choice, but do not project this on others (e.g. ethical vegans who are not politically radicalised).

Sellick is correct, however, when he states that "The individual who is dominated by ego, follows his instincts and lives out his socialisation is the one who is least personable. On the other hand, the one who ... knows himself to the extent that he may live in a way that is not determined by his proclivities, is the most personable." I would argue that people who, upon considered reflection give up meat, reflect a greater awareness of themselves, and their place in the world.

First, I find perplexing Sellick's claim that the way of thinking that leads to veganism is prevalent over Judeo-Christian thought in our culture. I hope he is correct in this.

Second, there is no basis for reading into PETA's statement the premise that humans and animals are 'the same'. Simply, we share certain relevant similarities that should preclude our assertion of the right to subject animals to suffering. I would fall short of asserting that animals have a right to a seat in parliament or welfare benefits. Nor would I insist that Sellick's wife choose his dog over him if it came to that. However, I don't think people should be labelled 'extremist' on the basis that they feel empathy for animals (pets or otherwise), and choose to limit their diet and other consuming habits accordingly.

I can't help but feel that there is a deep connection between how we treat animals and how we rationalise killing each other.

I don't think Sellick comes close to answering this fundamental question.