Animals, on the whole, belong to this category. When I'm surfing far from shore and a shark attacks, my concern for animals doesn't help; I'm as likely to get eaten as the next surfer, even if he can spend every Sunday afternoon photographing 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 does not failed to argue, it is the idea of ​​the animals' interests. I have the impression that he did not defend this point of view well because animals are not the only ones who are interested in it. We can say that trees and plants are also of interest. Something addresses a legitimate concern for an organic life form if it advances that life form.