Descartes, Hobbes, and other philosophers cited in Francione's article argued that animals have no souls, are mere automatons, and that they cannot morally engage in a social contract and are therefore immune to the protections it would offer. If the first two statements were true then one could perhaps justify the cruel treatment of animals, but research over the last 150 years has consistently shown that animals are complex creatures that think and communicate: on par with or just below humanity in cognitive faculties. While animals may not be able to verbally or morally participate in the social contract, the article makes a valid point that many humans cannot participate in it either, but are still protected by society. This makes me think of two points that conflict with this view of the social contract, 1. if humans don't need to participate morally to be included, why shouldn't animals be included, and 2. non-consent should fate that society has imposed on you, it will be enough to give up the social contract or allow a change in the way society