Non-Human Animals: Crash Course Philosophy #42

Summary

This script explores the ethical treatment of animals, questioning why society reacts differently to the death of certain animals like Cecil the lion compared to the routine consumption of others. It delves into Peter Singer's concept of 'speciesism' and the moral inconsistency in how humans use animals for food, clothing, and testing. The discussion challenges traditional justifications for animal use, such as intelligence disparity and the 'might makes right' argument, and introduces the idea of equal consideration of interests, urging viewers to reflect on their dietary choices and cultural practices.

Takeaways

• 🦁 The death of Cecil the lion in 2015 sparked outrage, highlighting the emotional response people have towards certain animals.
• 🐰 People often feel a strong moral repugnance towards harming animals like lions or kittens, but not necessarily towards killing animals like deer, ducks, cows, or chickens.
• 🐰 The script questions the moral consistency in how we treat animals, especially in comparison to how we use them for food, clothing, and testing.
• 🐰 Peter Singer introduces the term 'speciesism' to describe the preference for our own species over others without morally relevant differences.
• 🐰 Singer argues that just as it was once considered normal to own people of a different skin color, future generations may view our treatment of animals with horror.
• 🐰 The script challenges the idea that intelligence should be a basis for moral consideration, noting that some animals may be more intelligent than severely cognitively impaired humans.
• 🐰 Carl Cohen argues for 'proud speciesism,' suggesting that humans, being at the top of the evolutionary chain, have the right to dominate other species.
• 🐰 The script points out the flaws in arguments based on tradition, comparing the longstanding but morally questionable practice of slavery.
• 🐰 The argument that humans need to eat animals for survival is countered by the fact that humans can be healthy without consuming animal products.
• 🐰 Singer advocates for an 'Equal Consideration of Interests,' emphasizing that all beings capable of suffering should be considered equally in moral decisions.
• 🐰 The script concludes by urging viewers to be consistent in their moral beliefs and to scrutinize their actions, especially in the context of how they treat animals.

Q & A

What was the public reaction to the death of Cecil the lion?

The public was shocked and outraged by the death of Cecil the lion, which led to the American hunter who killed him going into hiding and eventually issuing an apology.

What is the concept of 'speciesism' as introduced by Peter Singer?

Speciesism is the preference for one's own species over others in the absence of morally relevant differences. Singer argues that it is a form of discrimination similar to racism or sexism.

Why does Peter Singer believe that our treatment of animals may be viewed with horror by future generations?

Singer suggests that future generations may view our treatment of animals with the same horror and shame that we now feel about past injustices like slavery, due to the moral inconsistency of our actions.

What is the utilitarian perspective on the treatment of non-human animals as described by Jeremy Bentham and Peter Singer?

Utilitarians like Bentham and Singer argue for the equal consideration of interests, emphasizing that all beings capable of suffering should have their interests weighed equally, regardless of their species.

How does the script challenge the justification of using animals for cosmetic testing based on intelligence differences?

The script points out that the intelligence gap between the smartest and least-smart humans is not significantly larger than the gap between humans and some animals, such as primates, thus making intelligence an unreliable basis for differential treatment.

What is Carl Cohen's argument for why humans should dominate other species?

Carl Cohen, a self-proclaimed 'proud speciesist,' argues that each species should prioritize its own survival and well-being, and since humans are currently at the top of the food chain, they have the right to dominate other beings.

What is the philosophical issue with arguments based on tradition?

Arguments from tradition are philosophically suspect because the mere fact that something has been done a certain way for a long time does not make it morally right or justifiable.

Why do some people believe that using animals for food is justified by necessity?

Some people believe that using animals for food is justified by necessity because they think humans need to eat animals to survive. However, the script points out that humans can be healthy without consuming animal products.

What is the concept of 'Equal Consideration of Interests' as it relates to non-human animals?

The concept of 'Equal Consideration of Interests' suggests that interests that are identical or similar should be given equal weight, regardless of whether they belong to humans or non-human animals, particularly when it comes to the avoidance of pain.

How does the script use the hypothetical scenario of eating a beloved pet to challenge our attitudes towards consuming animals?

The script presents the idea of eating a deceased beloved pet to provoke thought about the inconsistency in our attitudes towards consuming animals. It questions why we find the idea repulsive when the pet is already dead and cannot suffer, suggesting that our aversion may be based on speciesism.

What is the philosophical goal in encouraging people to scrutinize their actions towards non-human animals?

The philosophical goal is to promote consistency and rationality in beliefs and actions. Philosophers encourage people to justify their actions and to be aware of potential inconsistencies, such as the difference in attitudes towards eating certain animals versus others.