Animals, in general, fall into this category. When I'm surfing far from shore and a shark attacks, my concern for the animals doesn't help; I'm just as likely to get eaten as the next surfer, even though he could spend every Sunday afternoon shooting sharks from a boat. Since animals cannot reciprocate, they are, from this point of view, outside the bounds of the ethical contract." Peter Singer's response to this argument is that, unlike animals, we humans have the ability to think and reason, which I think is a good argument, but where I think Peter Singer has failed to argue is the idea of the interest of animals. I think he didn't do a good job of arguing this point of view because animals aren't the only ones who have an interest. We can argue that trees and plants also have interest. Something is in light of a legitimate interest in an organic life form in case it advances that life form