彼得辛格教授是一位生活在美國和澳大利亞的效益主義哲學家，而筆者則是居住在台灣的佛教修行人。我們都是無神論者與學者，並且共同致力於改善動物福利。本文探討彼此從不同的出發點，是如何得出同樣的結論？

一如往常地，辛格以效益主義觀點來論證：動物如同人類，應受到平等考量。筆者則從「緣起，性空、中道」的佛法觀點獲得同樣的結論。

在我們的對話過程中，激盪出一些深入的討論，例如：我們怎樣才能對他人的痛苦感同身受？如何可能檢核他者之個人經驗的正確性？在公共領域，為了改善動物福利，是否有可能劃出「平等考慮動物福利」的一條線？

Prof. Peter Singer is a Utilitarian philosopher, living in the United States and Australia, and I am a Buddhist practitioner, living in Taiwan. We are both atheists and scholars, and we share a commitment to improving animal welfare. This article explores how is it that our differing starting points lead to the same conclusion?

As usual, Singer proved by utilitarian viewpoints that animals, like humans, must be considered equally, and I proved the same conclusion by the Buddhist viewpoints: dependent origination, protecting life, and middle way.

In the course of our dialogue, we have stirred up some depth discussions, such as: How can we ‘putting our self in others’ Shoes’? How to explore the correctness other’s personal experience. In the public sphere, in order to improve animal welfare, is it possible to draw a line that considers animal welfare equally?