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.

Outlines

00:00

🦁 The Ethics of Animal Treatment

This paragraph delves into the ethical considerations surrounding the treatment of animals, particularly in the context of hunting and the use of animals for various human needs. It starts with the controversial case of Cecil the lion and the public's strong reaction to his death. The script questions the disparity in our emotional responses to the death of certain animals versus the routine consumption of others. It introduces the concept of 'speciesism' as defined by philosopher Peter Singer, which criticizes the preferential treatment of humans over other species without a morally relevant basis. The paragraph also touches on the historical comparison to slavery and the potential for future generations to view our treatment of animals with the same disdain. It challenges the reader to consider the moral relevance of intelligence as a justification for differential treatment and ends by questioning the reader's own consistency in ethical beliefs regarding animal treatment.

05:01

🍽 The Necessity and Tradition of Animal Consumption

The second paragraph continues the discussion on the ethical treatment of animals, focusing on the necessity and tradition of consuming animal products. It challenges the common belief that eating animals is justified by necessity, pointing out that humans can be healthy without consuming animal products. The script introduces the concept of 'Equal Consideration of Interests' as proposed by Singer, emphasizing the importance of considering the shared interest in avoiding pain among all beings capable of suffering. It contrasts this with the utilitarian perspective of Jeremy Bentham, who argued for the equal consideration of suffering regardless of the being's ability to reason or communicate. The paragraph also addresses the inconsistency in people's attitudes towards eating certain animals while finding the idea of consuming pets or other culturally significant animals repugnant. It concludes by urging the reader to examine their own actions and beliefs for internal consistency and to engage in rational discourse on the topic.

Keywords

💡Speciesism

Speciesism is the practice of assigning different moral values to individuals based on their species membership. In the video, Peter Singer uses this term to critique the preferential treatment humans give to their own species over others, without a morally relevant difference. It is central to the theme as it challenges the viewer to consider whether the way humans treat animals is ethically justifiable.

💡Cecil the lion

Cecil the lion was a well-known lion in Zimbabwe whose death at the hands of a hunter in 2015 sparked global outrage. The video uses this incident to illustrate the strong emotional reactions people have towards certain animals, which contrasts with the routine consumption of other animals, thereby highlighting the inconsistency in human attitudes towards animal welfare.

💡Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that focuses on maximizing overall happiness or minimizing suffering. The video references Jeremy Bentham, a utilitarian philosopher, to argue that all beings capable of suffering should have their interests considered equally. This concept is pivotal in the discussion about how animals should be treated, emphasizing the need to balance human interests with those of animals.

💡Cosmetics testing

Cosmetics testing is a practice mentioned in the video where rabbits are restrained and products are put into their eyes to test for harmful effects. This method is used as an example of the harm humans inflict on animals for non-essential purposes, thereby questioning the ethical justification for such practices.

💡Factory farming

Factory farming refers to a system of industrial agriculture where animals are raised in large numbers in confined spaces. The video describes the conditions in which chickens are kept in factory farms, highlighting the ethical concerns about animal welfare. This term is used to illustrate the widespread nature of animal mistreatment in the name of efficiency and profit.

💡Intelligence

The video discusses intelligence as a potential criterion for justifying differential treatment of animals. It challenges the notion that humans should be treated differently from animals based on intelligence, arguing that this would be akin to a caste system based on cognitive abilities, which is generally considered morally repugnant.

💡Equal Consideration of Interests

This concept, introduced by Peter Singer, suggests that interests should be considered equally regardless of the beings involved. The video uses this principle to argue that humans should not automatically prioritize their interests over those of animals, especially when it comes to avoiding suffering.

💡Proud speciesist

The term 'proud speciesist' is used to describe someone who openly acknowledges and defends the preferential treatment of their own species. Carl Cohen, mentioned in the video, uses this term to argue that humans, as the dominant species, have the right to prioritize their own interests, which the video challenges as a morally defensible position.

💡Tradition

Tradition is brought up in the video as a potential justification for the continued use of animals. It is critiqued as a philosophically weak argument because the mere fact that something has been done for a long time does not make it morally right, drawing a parallel with the historical practice of slavery.

💡Necessity

The video discusses the concept of necessity in the context of using animals for survival. It argues that while it might be morally justifiable to use animals for survival, most people in industrialized societies do not consume animal products out of necessity but rather for taste and convenience, thereby questioning the moral basis for such consumption.

💡Fluffy

Fluffy is a hypothetical cat mentioned in the video to provoke thought about the inconsistency in how humans treat animals. The video challenges the viewer to consider why they would not eat their beloved pet cat after its death, despite consuming other animals, thereby highlighting the speciesist attitudes that underpin our treatment of animals.

Highlights

The public outrage over the death of Cecil the lion in 2015 and the subsequent hiding of the American hunter who killed him.

The strong emotional reactions to animal cruelty contrast with the common acceptance of using animals for food and products.

Introduction of the term 'speciesism' by philosopher Peter Singer to describe the preference for one's own species over others without morally relevant differences.

Comparison of historical acceptance of racial discrimination to current attitudes towards animal treatment, suggesting a future shift in perspective.

The ethical inconsistency in treating animals differently based on intelligence, given that some humans are less intelligent than some animals.

Carl Cohen's argument for 'proud speciesism' and the potential hypocrisy in using power as a justification for exploiting animals.

Critique of the 'tradition' argument for animal use, drawing parallels to the historical defense of slavery.

The argument that humans can be healthy without consuming animal products, challenging the 'necessity' justification for animal use.

Peter Singer's concept of 'Equal Consideration of Interests' and the utilitarian approach to animal ethics.

Jeremy Bentham's utilitarian perspective emphasizing the capacity to suffer as a morally relevant factor.

The hypothetical scenario of eating a beloved pet after its death to provoke thought on speciesist attitudes.

The call for philosophical consistency in beliefs and actions, particularly regarding the treatment of animals.

The philosophical challenge to justify actions that are internally inconsistent, such as eating certain animals but not others.

The importance of scrutinizing one's own actions and beliefs in the context of moral philosophy.

A summary of the moral considerations discussed in the episode, including the viewpoints of Peter Singer and Carl Cohen.

An introduction to the next episode's topic: moral obligations regarding families.

Transcripts

Remember Cecil the lion?

A lot of people were shocked – even outraged – when they heard about his death at the hands of an American hunter in 2015.

The response to the lion’s death was so strong that the guy who shot Cecil basically went into hiding, until he issued an apology.

But isn’t that a little bit strange?

We react with horror when we hear about a majestic lion being shot, or sacks of kittens being tossed into rivers, or owners training their dogs to fight each other for sport.

But, what’s the difference between killing Cecil and killing a deer, or a duck, or a cow, or a chicken?

[Theme Music]

How do we reconcile the strong feelings many of us have about certain animals – mainly the cute ones, like kittens and puppies – with the way we actually use animals in our own lives?

Most of us think nothing of using non-human animals for their meat, milk, or skins.

And not only do we use animals in these ways, but using them as we do almost always harms them.

A common method for testing cosmetics, for example, involves restraining rabbits and putting the product into their eyes, leaving it for a set amount of time, and then washing it out and checking for ill effects.

Rabbits are used for this because they don’t have tear ducts, so they aren’t able to flush the product out of their eyes the way our eyes would.

It may not surprise you to hear that this can be extremely painful, and often blinds the rabbits, which are then euthanized.

On factory farms, chickens are housed in tiny cages, with each bird occupying a space the size of a standard piece of printer paper.

Their beaks are often cut down to keep them from pecking each other, and when they’re no longer laying enough eggs, they’re killed.

These are just a couple examples of the conditions animals experience at our expense, and they’re not unusual.

We’d never dream of using another human being in these ways, but we think nothing of doing it to non-human animals.

So, how do we let ourselves do that?

Contemporary Australian philosopher Peter Singer uses the word ‘speciesism’ to describe giving preference to our own species over another, in the absence of morally relevant differences.

Singer reminds us that there was a time when most Americans thought it was totally normal and right for members of one group to literally own members of another group – based on a morally irrelevant difference – skin color.

And today, the members of the oppressing group look back on the reasoning of their ancestors with horror and shame.

Well, Singer predicts that there will be a time when our descendants look back on us and our treatment of non-human animals with the same reaction.

In a nutshell, Singer says, if it’s not ok to do it to a human, it’s not ok to do it to an animal either.

Now, you might think you agree with him, because who doesn’t love bunnies and kittens?!

But do you really agree with him?

If you agree that we should treat like cases alike, and that a difference in treatment requires a morally relevant difference, then you have to identify the differences that justify treating non-human animals in ways that we would never subject humans to.

One arbiter you might use to justify the difference is intelligence.

There’s no question that, as a species, our intelligence trumps that of every other species on the planet.

But we don’t normally think that intelligence is a good way for deciding how you get treated.

Dystopian novels like Brave New World bring out the visceral distaste we have for that kind of intelligence-based caste system.

So if it’s clearly wrong to treat members of our species differently based on intelligence, why would it be ok to treat members of other species differently on that same basis?

Well, one response might be to argue that the difference in intelligence between the smartest and the least-smart humans is much smaller than the intelligence gap between humans and other species.

But empirically, that’s not true.

Sure, most humans fall within the same general range of intelligence, but some humans are profoundly cognitively disabled.

And some animals – particularly primates – are probably more intelligent than those severely impaired humans.

So that argument doesn’t hold up.

But, maybe you think we should treat other animals the way we do, just because we can.

Contemporary American philosopher Carl Cohen, for example, calls himself a “proud speciesist.”

He argues that every species is struggling to claw its way to the top, and that’s how it should be.

Every species ought to be most concerned about protecting itself, he says, and since humans are currently at the top, well, that means that we’re the best, so we can do pretty much what we want to other beings.

The problem with this reasoning is, you’d almost certainly not be ok with it if you weren’t a member of the privileged species.

Remember, this is the exact argument that was given by slave owners to justify their domination of Africans and indigenous peoples.

So if you don’t normally think might makes right, then wouldn’t it be hypocritical to use it as a justification in this case?

Yet another rationale is that this is this is the way it’s always been.

And it’s true: Humans have been dominating non-human animals for a really long time.

It’s part of our culture, and entire ways of life are based on it: farmers, ranchers, fishers, and so on.

But arguments from tradition are always philosophically suspect.

The mere fact that something has been a certain way for a long time says nothing about whether it’s good.

And once again, that was the same argument used in defense of slavery.

And yes, the abolition of slavery was economically costly and a huge disruption of slave-owning culture.

But I think that we all agree: it was totally worth it.

Still, one of the strongest arguments for our uses of non-human animals is the argument of need.

Most people believe that we’re justified in doing what it takes in order to survive.

In fact, most people even think it’s ok to kill another human in the name of self-defense.

This argument doesn’t justify using animals for non-necessary things like cosmetics testing,

but eating is a necessity, so there’s nothing wrong with eating animals.

Right?

The problem is, we know humans can be perfectly healthy without eating animals.

So yes, you need to eat, but you don’t need to eat animals.

For his part, Singer says we should think about the treatment of non-human animals in terms of an Equal Consideration of Interests.

This means that identical interests should be given equal weight, regardless of what type of being they occur in.

Of course, humans have all sorts of interests that animals don’t have.

Some of us have interests in going to college, and voting, and getting married.

And non-human animals don’t have an interest in doing those things.

So we don’t have any obligation to help them do that stuff.

But there is an interest that we all share: We have an interest in avoiding pain.

Singer’s utilitarian ancestor, Jeremy Bentham, said,

“The question is not, ‘Can they reason?’ nor ‘Can they talk?’ but rather, ‘Can they suffer?'”

Because we’re all alike in our capacity to suffer, and in our desire to avoid suffering.

Utilitarians like Bentham and Singer say that we need to equally consider that interest, and that we’re unjustified in preferencing human interests over non-human ones.

Now, to be clear, as utilitarians, these thinkers would never issue an out-and-out prohibition on the use of non-human animals.

What they’re against is the unthinking assumption that animals are at our disposal.

Since they’re in the group of things that feel – like humans – they must be factored into the utilitarian calculus.

So if the issue is really about need – if you’re literally starving and the only thing around to eat is an animal, they’d argue that you’re morally justified in eating it,

because the suffering involved in your death by starvation would outweigh the suffering of the animal.

The problem is that, for most people in the industrialized world today, it’s not about need.

It’s simply about taste, and convenience, and how things have always been done.

But let’s head over to the Thought Bubble to look at this from another angle.

Here’s Fluffy.

She’s been your close companion since she was a kitten.

You love her very much, and you’ve given her the best life you could.

But now Fluffy is nearing the end of her life.

You’ll care for her until the end.

But when she dies why not eat her?

I mean, unless you’re a vegetarian, there seems to be no good reason that you’d be repelled by this idea.

But you almost certainly are.

Take some time here to think about why that is.

It can’t be about harm, because Fluffy is already dead – she can’t feel pain.

Maybe you’re appealing to some sort of principle of respect for the dead.

But we know that some cultures think the best way to respect the dead is to consume their flesh.

So if you’re only not eating her because you have a thing against eating cats in particular, but you’re ok with eating other animals, that seems pretty speciesist.

It’s just that the species you’re giving preference to are both humans and cats.

But you’re still a speciesist.

Thanks, Thought Bubble!

OK, so Singer has given us some pretty strong reasons to re-evaluate our treatment of non-human animals.

But you still might be thinking, “Why should I care?”

What if I don’t care that I’m a speciesist?

I like eating meat, and feel no shame about it, because everyone I know eats meat too.

Well, the thing is: Philosophers want you to be consistent with your beliefs.

They want you to think about why you think it would be wrong to eat Fluffy, or why you wouldn’t eat dog meat if it was served to you, or why you were upset about Cecil the lion.

And yet you have no problem eating, say, bacon, even though dogs and pigs have the same level of cognition and awareness.

Philosophers want you to be able to justify your actions, to give reasons for what you do.

So if you’re saying that reasons don’t matter – that you can just do what you want even if your actions are internally inconsistent, then not only are you not doing philosophy,

well, you’re sort of opting out of rational discourse altogether.

Because if these reasons don’t matter, then why should any reasons matter?

If I want to be a racist or a homophobe or a sexist, and I’m comfortable with it because the people I hang out with have those attitudes too, well, the conversation’s sort of over.

It can be hard to really scrutinize your own actions, not just regarding non-human animals, but in most areas of your life.

Today we learned about moral considerations regarding non-human animals.

We took a look at what philosophers like Peter Singer and Carl Cohen have to say about their use, including the concept of equal consideration of interests.

Next time, we’re going to look at moral obligations regarding our families.

Crash Course Philosophy is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios.

You can head over to their channel to check out a playlist of the latest episodes from shows like:

The Art Assignment, Braincraft, and PBS Infinite Series.

This episode of Crash Course was filmed in the Doctor Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course Studio

with the help of all of these awesome people and our equally fantastic graphics team is Thought Cafe.