If it is believed that man is properly in dominion over the earth and that he may do with it and all things on it as he will, then the first definition is sufficient. If generally accepted ideas in man's community are to the effect that man's infliction of suffering on animals is right, then such is not immoral.
If it is believed, however, that life, all life, as it has evolved in its beauty and complexity is the consideration upon which conduct should be judged, then the second definition must apply. Man being the dominant species that consciously and by plan produces suffering or harmony, beauty or ugliness, can do or fail to do what is right in relation to all life. Of course the first definition does not rule out ideas for human conduct that are determined in relation to life but it does not require such ideas.
Welborn, R. (1985). Is man’s infliction of suffering on animals immoral?. In M.W. Fox & L.D. Mickley (Eds.), Advances in animal welfare science 1985/86 (pp. 297-302). Washington, DC: The Humane Society of the United States.