The 1975 publication of Peter Singer’s "Animal Liberation" rattled the medical field with a declaration concerning animal treatment (Singer 231).  Singer’s argument calls for the “equal consideration of interests” among sentient beings, defined as those capable of experiencing suffering. In the selection “All Animals are Created Equal,” Singer uses the word “speciesism” to describe the immoral exploitation of animals by humans as a means to their own ends (Singer 235). Singer would like to establish a morally ideal equality primarily based on the “characteristic of having interests” (Singer 577). The principle of equality as a moral ideal that accounts for all beings with interest not to suffer permits Singer to conclude that humans should not be placed in a hierarchy above non-humans.  In 1978, Bonnie Steinbock responds to Singer with “Speciesism and the Idea of Equality.”  Unlike past moral theorists who intuitively attribute “intrinsic worth” to humans, invalidly dismissing claims of speciesism, Steinbock counters that humans possess distinct qualities that grant greater “moral status.” Human beings are active moral agents that use practical reason, while unequivocally, nonhumans are passive moral agents dominated by instinctual reason and cognition. While she is opposed to the cruel treatment of animals, she persuasively advocates human interests carrying greater importance than animal due to our uniquely mutual moral obligation to each other. However, if Steinbock argues that intelligence is the standard by which one is granted inclusion into the moral community, she is unable to tackle the question of whether an animal of greater intelligence than an incapacitated human should also be extended membership.  Though she can only justify human interest as greater on the grounds of “sentiment and feelings,” further examples are provided to solidify her argument.