While we can concede that the subject of a life is to be worthy of moral consideration, we are not fully able to define what this means or choose how this can have effects for other organisms that are different than us. In this way, we can recognize that animals have some inherent value but because their lives are more influenced by a basic need for survival, their value becomes inherently less than ours.
The point to make her is that people can only establish and define our own lives. In this way, by comparing ourselves to animals, we can start to recognize some major differences in the way we experience life. Additionally, this comparison allows us to recognize some similar features in animal life but since we are not animals, we cannot establish any more or any less value when considering human life. People must have greater value than animals because of the similarities, which are the basic need for survival. If we compare our need versus their need, then as a species our life has more value than an animal’s because of our place within the animal kingdom. Basically, as animals can be a threat to our lives, it is important to protect our species and survive over animals and not equal to them. We can recognize that they have some value but humans require greater consideration in defining and protecting our own value. This allows people only define our moral consideration and worthiness and we cannot clearly draw lines or create limits for other species. This gives us greater value because we have to advocate for our own lives.