Moral attitude towards both domestic and wild animals has old philosophical foundations. In modern philosophy, the great German thinker Immanuel Kant recommends to have contact with wild animals who pose sense organs, and the French thinker Rene Descartes, who treated the world from a mechanical point of view, perceived animals as dumb machines. Also, Immanuel. Kant considered that a careful interaction with animals can have a good influence on the moral evolution of humans and also that we can judge a person`s heart by the way this person treats animals. Another philosopher of this era, Jeremi Bentham, mentioned in his work Utilitarismul that the moral obligation consists in taking care of animals. Issues related to the moral attitude towards animals and their rights began to be approached only in the second half of the XX century. The great philosopher Albert Schweitzer considers that it is necessary to build a new humanity which can be ruled by a new ethics, real and inalienable one. In his opinion the respect for life incorporates the entire ethics of love in the highest and deepest sense, which constitutes the source of a constant renewal not only for each individual in particular, but for humanity in general. Following these ideas, the Australian philosopher Peter Singer who approached the problem of „animal rights” linked to the earth ethics of the American A. Leopold who enlarges the society`s limits by including into it the soils and water, the plants and animals, which change the human`s role and transform him from the society`s conquered into a member equal to him. The earth`s ethics has become the philosophy underlying the movement that demands to be a moral attitude towards animals, and their rights to be respected. In the opinion of P. Singer, the attitude of most people towards animals is founded on a wrong idea according to which animals are inferior just because they belong to a different species. This attitude is called by him „speciism”, based on “humans are special” arguments, which evolves from humans’ interest in avoiding pain. But the speciism is amoral because neglecting the animal`s interests by making the suffer is also amoral. That is why humans have to pose a moral attitude toward animals, and they don`t have to produce pain to animals. Another representative of this theory, the American philosopher Tom Regan, uses the ethic argument according to which animals possess an inherent value which he calls inherent value and he proves that these beings have the moral right to a treatment with respect. Animals, in his opinion must not be traded as simple tools in order to gain certain purposes on the grounds that they are „subjects with souls” and that they possess an inherent value. For T. Regan these subjects have perceptions of the senses, beliefs, desires, motives, memory, senses of the future. So T. Regan bases his conception on the transfers of human rights on animals. He proves that all mature mammals pose self-conscience and are subjects of life and on the virtue of this cause they have the right to live. Thus, one of the most controversial problems on the ecological ethics consist in the approach of the matters related to the fact if animals can have moral rights as well as humans and what their place should be. Animal rights targets the complete change of our attitude towards the non-humans who require that humans give up the idea that the exploitation of other species is something natural and inevitable. Such an approach must be interpreted as a violation of the morals. The ideas of P. Singer and T. Regan have become a guide for the organizations and social movements who have begun a fight to defend the animals, which have a huge impact on the animal’s destiny, although these actions are not comparable to the huge proportions of the murder and mutilation of animals for food, for scientific research and for teaching purposes. We can conclude that the ecological ethic tries to extend the morals which is limited to the relations between the human beings to the relations between the human beings and other organisms. The existence of the inherent value indicates the fact that animals are not predestined to be manipulated by humans, but for other purposes which mostly are not understood by him. The existence of animals is much more indispensable than their importance to humans. We consider that through the ecological ethics it can be imposed a moratorium on the attitude towards animals as things and resources. In this context, man has no right to decide on positions rationality question about the value or the right to life of one or another animal species. He must take care of all species in order not to prejudice natural biodiversity. If postmodern society will not conceive such purposes as categorical imperative, it will not be able to overcome the modern ecological crisis. Animal protection policy must be based on the understanding that the multiplicity of species of both domestic and wild animals must be kept proceeding because of their intrinsic value. In our opinion, such an approach can help building more efficient relationships with the environment in general and its components, based in particular on ethical but not only on economic values and on the principle of utility.