Who's the REAL animal rights champion, Hearne or Singer?

Although man has used, manipulated, and yes, eaten animals for hundreds, even thousands of years, the issue of whether animals have a claim to rights just as much as we do is a relatively new development. There are many people out there who all agree that the status quo in regards to our relation with animals is flawed or incorrect, and needs to be changed. But at this point, the opinions diverge in completely random directions. Some examples of this difference in thought are Vicki Hearne's essay "What's Wrong With Animal Rights" and Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation." Both claim to be authentic sources of "animal rights" thought; in fact, Hearne slams Singer personally in her essay. So the question remains, who's the real animal rights champion?

Hearne's essay is packed with powerful, emotional appeal. Hearne wastes no time in providing personal analogies and anecdotes with her two dogs, Annie and Drummer to put her point across. She argues strongly in the defense of the owners of pets, while denouncing animal rights organizations like the Humane Society as "the pound, the place with the decompression chamber or the lethal injections." She also considers the term "rights" as a reciprocal responsibility of duties, the government does something for Hearne because she does something for the government, and Drummer does something for Hearne because she does something for Drummer.

In terms of writing style and rhetorical mode, Singer's essay is 180 degrees opposite that of Hearne's. Singer writes in a philosophical, tempered tone, devoid of the strong emotion of Hearne's writing while still preserving his own passions. His structure is simple and to the point, "this is my argument, these are my reasons, these are the counterarguments, this is why they're wrong." Singer argues against the practice of what he calls "speciesism", or favoring the human race over that of "nonhumans," something he places on the same level of racism. He argues against this practice specifically in the fields of animal experimentation and animal consumption, but implies at the end of his essay that there are even more problems to discuss besides these two great issues.

So which author takes first prize? Obviously such a decision is bound to have bias and subjectivity on my part, but my answer in the end is wholeheartedly in favor of Singer. Singer's essay is, in my opinion, crafted far more wittily and logically than Hearne's, whose essay I believe filled with too much pathos appeal and not enough logos or ethos. Furthermore, Hearne's main argument and point is ambiguously hidden in a clutter of "what are rights?" and "look at these stories about Annie and Drummer." Singer's argument, however, is loud and clear, "don't experiment on animals, and don't eat animals." And while I may not be prepared to abandon by T-bone steak or rotisserie chicken anytime soon, Singer is, in my mind, the real animal rights champion compared to Ms. Hearne.