God created us fairly, although we human's gained his highest form of creation. We are assigned to be it's caretaker, from the highest mountain to the valleys and plains. To the shallow seas down to the deep seas. But what have we done? We become savage and abused this given task.
I think equality doesn't extent to what form of organism you are, but to a life is equal to life basis. We are all fair in a way that we breath the same air, we step on the same ground, we drink the same water and we all die. What I am trying to figure out is the animals beyond the snug cages of the commercial zoos and theme and amusement parks.
Amusement was certainly the most important reason for the establishment of the early zoos, and it remains an important function of contemporary zoos as well. Most people visit zoos in order to be entertained, and any zoo that wishes to remain financially sound must cater to this desire.
Even highly regarded zoos have their share of dancing bears, dolphins, penguins, seals, sealions and trained birds of prey. But although providing amusement for people is viewed by the general public as a very important function of zoos, it is hard to see how providing such amusement could possibly justify keeping wild animals in captivity.
It is true that being taken from the wild and confined in zoos, animals are deprived of many great goods. The worst part is they are prevented from gathering their own food, developing their own social orders and generally behaving in ways that are natural to them. These activities are requiring more liberty than those animals that are permitted in zoos.
Since an interest in not being taken from the wild and kept confined is very important for most animals, it follows that if everything else is equal, we should respect this interest. Suppose, on the other hand, that we do not have duties to animals. There are two further possibilities: either we have duties to people that sometimes concern animals, or what we do to animals is utterly without moral import. The latter view is quite implausible, and I shall not consider it further. People who have held the former view, that we have duties to people that concern animals, have sometimes thought that such duties arise because we can 'judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.