Lesson video

Hello there.

My name is Mr. Robertson and I really welcome you to this fantastic lesson in RE.

We are studying a unit, Personhood: What does it mean to be alive?

In this lesson, we're gonna be thinking about the idea of sentience and animal consciousness, and we're gonna be asking this really big question.

If we might know what consciousness is, can we say that animals have it?

And is it like us or unlike us?

Let's come in to see and think a little bit more about this brilliant philosophical question.

By the end of this lesson, you will be able to explain how philosophers and scientists use evidence to argue for different positions about consciousness in animals.

We have four keywords today.

Our first word is awareness, which is noticing or knowing that something is happening.

Our next word is consciousness.

This is the state of being aware of and able to think about one's existence, thoughts and surroundings.

Sentience is the capacity to experience pain or pleasure, and suffering is the experience of pain or distress.

As we go through this lesson, you're gonna come to really understand these words.

So today our lesson is in two parts, and in the first part of the lesson, we're gonna be thinking all about the debate about animals and consciousness.

We're gonna start with an example for you to think about.

This lesson is a philosophical lesson, so we're gonna be thinking about arguments and evidence.

This is Laura's dog, Kali.

When Laura comes home, Kali is waiting by the door.

She barks, tail wagging, as soon as she hears Laura's key turn in the lock, then jumps up to greet her.

I wonder if you think this behavior suggests that Kali has consciousness?

And remember, by consciousness we mean an awareness of the surroundings and awareness of who they are.

I wonder what you think about that.

You might want to turn to the person next to you or just reflect on that for yourself for a couple of minutes.

So I wonder what you thought about that.

Well, Laura's thinking about Kali.

She says, "I think Kali has consciousness like me because she also seems aware and has feelings.

She follows me around the house, looks scared during thunderstorms and knows when I'm upset.

She remembers when it's time to go to the park.

She rolls over when I ask her to, and she makes her own choices, like who to sit next to.

All of this makes me feel like she experiences the world in her own way.

" So Laura is giving us a lot of evidence from her experience of owning Kali about why she thinks Kali does have consciousness.

What does Laura say that suggests that Kali is aware of her surroundings?

What evidence does she use?

And do you agree with Laura that this shows she has consciousness?

So I wonder what you thought about it.

Well, let's meet Aisha.

Aisha's talking about her friend Laura's dog, Kali.

Aisha says, "I love Kali, but I don't think she has consciousness in the same way humans do.

She might seem excited or scared, but that could just be automatic reactions to things around her.

Learning commands and remembering routines is just training and habit.

Even when she chooses who to sit next to, it's just based on instinct or what's rewarding for her, not because she's thinking about what she's doing.

" So interestingly, Aisha is listening to Laura.

She's listening to the evidence that Laura has, but she's coming to a very different conclusion.

How does Aisha explain Kali's apparent consciousness?

You might've seen how Aisha's saying, well actually, is it really thinking for herself or is it more that she's used to being motivated by a reward for something?

And so that behavior is more automatic and it's a habit rather than a thought about conscious behavior.

Laura and Aisha are discussing whether animals have consciousness.

Laura says, "I think animals have consciousness because they feel pain and show emotion.

That shows they have inner experiences even if they can't describe them like humans do.

" Aisha says, "I think humans have consciousness and animals don't.

We can reflect on our thoughts and ask questions about our existence.

Animals are not self-aware like humans.

" So Laura and Aisha have quite different interpretations, don't they?

Of this idea of consciousness.

I wonder whose view best fits with your own.

What do you think about this idea of animals and consciousness?

Do you agree more with Laura or with Aisha?

And where does your view come from?

Have you got pets of your own?

Have you got particular ideas about science or where consciousness comes from?

Maybe again, take a couple of minutes, talk to the person next to you.

Think about what your view is and what formed your view.

So one way in which consciousness can be understood is the state of being aware and able to think about one's existence, reflect on thoughts and be aware of surroundings.

Our evidence for consciousness comes from certain places.

One is that it's located in the brain and nervous system.

Neuroscience asks questions like: Does it have a brain or complex nerves that could produce experiences?

Our human brains are incredibly complex and we have nerves that we think produce experiences.

Is that the same for animals?

Another way is to look at behavior, that's known as ethology.

And that might ask a question like: Does it act in ways that suggest awareness, curiosity, or purposeful action?

So how does the animal behave?

And thirdly, we might do some psychological tests and that might ask a question like: Can it show empathy, recognize itself, solve problems, or learn from experience?

So there are three different ways we might look for evidence of consciousness: through the brain, through behavior, through psychological testing.

Let's just check our understanding so far.

There's a sentence here with some missing words.

I'd like you to think what the missing words might be.

"Consciousness can be understood as the state of being- of and able to- about one's existence, thoughts and surroundings.

Can you think of two words that would fit in that sentence?

Pause the video and have a think.

Excellent.

So we might say consciousness can be understood as the state of being aware of and able to think about one's existence, thoughts and surroundings.

So studies of animal behavior can be used to suggest non-human animals have consciousness.

This is one famous example.

We know as a human being, when we look in a mirror, we recognize ourselves and we can see even very young children begin to recognize themselves, which shows that they're aware of themselves as a being, and the mirror allows them to understand that.

Now actually, primates, dolphins, can recognize themselves in mirrors, and other animals, such as crows, show advanced problem solving skills, and elephants have been shown to display emotional responses.

When a member of an elephant herd dies, animals will seem to mourn and visit their grave.

So there is evidence out there to suggest that consciousness might exist in animals.

For example, if a primate can recognize itself in a mirror, this suggests it has a form of self-awareness and therefore it might have consciousness.

However, others argue that these studies do not show that non-human animals have consciousness.

So for example, looking at the same example of a primate recognizing itself in a mirror, some scientists might argue that this is a learned, instinctive or biological response.

Mirror recognition might be explained as a learned response rather than genuine self-awareness.

So perhaps the primate has seen humans recognize themselves in a mirror and then they've learned through the experiment that that is something they might do.

So it doesn't, some scientists argue, conclusively prove that animals have consciousness.

So it's interesting, isn't it?

How the same piece of evidence can be used in different ways.

Scientists and philosophers disagree about whether animals have consciousness.

Some argue for consciousness, and they might say animals can show awareness, they have memories, they feel emotions, and they can solve problems.

And all of that is used as evidence to support the idea of consciousness.

But some scientists and philosophers do not agree with that.

They would say that animals can't use language, they can't reflect on their thoughts, they can't reason and make moral choices, and they can't create culture and art.

And so therefore, this evidence is stronger as it suggests that animals don't have consciousness.

Which of these evidence can be used as saying animals do have consciousness, for animal consciousness?

A: creating art, B: showing awareness, C: using complex language, D: making moral choices?

Pause the video and have a think.

Excellent, it's B, isn't it?

Showing awareness.

Well done if you got that right.

Now, your view on consciousness is likely to affect the attitude that you have towards how non-human animals are used.

For example, if someone thinks non-human animals do not have consciousness, they're more likely to accept things like animal experimentation and eat animal products.

However, if someone thinks non-human animals do have consciousness, they're more likely to support alternatives to animal experiments and be vegetarian or vegan.

Can you see why that would be so?

The presuppositions we have about the world makes a difference to our behavior.

And so how we think about consciousness in animals is going to make a big possible difference to how we see the idea of experimenting on animals or the way in which it's okay or not okay to eat animals and animal products.

Let's just check our understanding again.

I've got a true or false question for you here.

Some non-human animals can recognize themselves in a mirror.

Is that true or false?

Excellent.

It true, isn't it?

Because we've seen that some animals such as dolphins and primates can recognize themselves in a mirror.

However, as we discussed, that doesn't prove for some scientists and philosophers that those animals have consciousness.

Okay, I've got a practice task for you now, thinking about this debate about animals and consciousness.

I've got a scenario I would like you to consider.

A farmer keeps chickens for their eggs.

A disease which could threaten humans is spreading through her flock.

She has to decide whether to kill them.

I wonder how much the idea of consciousness would matter when the farmer decides what to do?

I'd like you to think about this question for yourself before discussing it with a partner, and I'd like you to be ready to report back.

Does the farmer's view on whether those animals are conscious or not make a difference as to whether she thinks those animals should be killed or not?

Would it impact her decision?

What do you think?

Spend some time in discussion about this and be ready to give your reasons for thinking that.

See you soon.

Excellent.

Some really good thinking.

So you may have said many things.

Here's some ideas that I came up with.

So you might have said: The chicken's consciousness should matter in this situation because they're capable of feeling pain and distress.

Even if they cannot understand the disease or make choices, their ability to suffer means the farmer has a moral responsibility to consider their welfare.

However, protecting human health is still a priority, but recognizing the chicken's inner experiences means the farmer should ensure the process is as humane and respectful as possible.

Or you might have said something like this: The chicken's consciousness shouldn't matter much in this situation because they cannot understand what is happening or make choices.

The farmer's main responsibility is to protect human health and the food supply.

However, the farmer should still try to reduce fear and pain as much as possible when killing the chickens.

If you've written some things which draw out this idea of that debate and you've managed to think of some arguments on both sides, then, brilliant, well done.

The second part of this lesson is all about the idea of sentience rather than consciousness.

So some people argue that sentience, the capacity to experience pain or pleasure, matters more than consciousness.

Let's consider a scenario.

So Kali has injured her paw.

Here are some reasons to think she's experiencing pain.

Kali's showing distress by whining and lowering her ears.

This shows she's experiencing suffering.

Kali's whimpering, she limps and avoids using her paw.

This shows she's aware of her injury.

I wonder if you've got a pet and they've ever been injured.

Did they display any of this behavior like Kali?

Did you see this whining or lowering of ears?

Did your animal limp?

Now, according to the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, Kali has pain receptors and brain systems like humans.

So this is a group of neuroscientists who have looked at those complex brain patterns we talked about and said, "Well, actually, they're very similar to the pain receptors that humans have.

" Let's meet Faye.

Faye's a vet who's been treating Kali, and she's explaining why she thinks the fact that Kali is experiencing pain is more important than whether she has consciousness.

She says, "I think what matters most is sentience, the capacity to feel pain or pleasure.

When Kali injured her paw, she was clearly suffering.

Following World Veterinary Association guidance, I gave her pain relief.

For me, the key issue is whether an animal; human or non-human, can suffer or experience wellbeing.

Kali clearly can.

" Let's check our understanding.

Sentience is the capacity to experience- or pleasure.

What's the missing word here?

Pause the video and have a think.

Excellent, it's the idea sentience is the capacity to experience pain or pleasure.

Brilliant, if you got that right.

Now, Peter Singer is a really famous philosopher and he's a sentientist.

He rejects what he calls "speciesism," which is the idea that humans are more important simply because they're humans.

He has something called the principle of equal consideration, which says that non-human animals are sentient, and so their suffering deserves the same moral weight as human suffering.

Hence, the idea of equal consideration.

Suffering is equal for humans and other animals.

So let's look at our example of Kali, who's suffering due to her injured paw.

Peter Singer would say, that suffering has the same moral worth as Laura who has a headache.

Both of them are suffering and their suffering has equal moral value.

Peter Singer is famous for his book "Animal Liberation.

" And in that, he makes this very simple argument: "What matters is not whether a being is human, but whether a being suffers.

" So for example, he looks at the suffering of chickens and pigs in factory farms, and he puts their suffering on one side, and on the other side, he puts our human interest, that we want to eat meat for pleasure.

We enjoy eating chicken or pork or sausages.

But for Peter Singer, the argument is quite simple.

The intense suffering of the chicken being farmed and killed for food outweighs the pleasure of a human who eats fried chicken.

So when he is asked the question about whether to eat meat, he would say, "The suffering of the animal far outweighs any pleasure I would get from eating it.

And so we shouldn't eat meat.

" Peter Singer describes treating animals unfairly, just because they're not human, as speciesism.

Let's look at that in his argument in a bit more detail.

He says, "One: animals are sentient, they can feel pleasure and pain, just like we saw Kali can.

Two: what matters morally is sentience.

So we should give equal consideration to the interests of all sentient beings.

Three: causing animal suffering just 'cause they're not human is unfair and speciesist.

Therefore, we should consider the interests of all sentient beings equally, including animals.

So for Peter Singer, animals are not less important or more important than humans.

They are equally important to humans.

Faye's explaining how being a sentientist affects her work as a vet.

She says, "When I treat patients, I focus on their feelings as much as their physical health.

And I explain to owners why it's important to care about how their animals experience the world.

Sentientism helps me see my job not just as fixing bodies, but as protecting the lives and feelings of beings who can suffer or enjoy life.

" So for Faye, it isn't just about looking after an animal, giving it some tablets, fixing it if it's got a hurt paw, but it's about making sure the animal has a happy life.

So making sure that the owner of a pet gives it the best possible food, making sure it has a really lovely space to live in, going outside if it needs to.

So it's a much bigger approach than simply looking after something that's been hurt.

Being a sentientist affects someone's attitude towards the use of non-human animals.

If someone thinks sentience should be recognized rather than consciousness, they're likely to: support alternatives to animal experimentation, be vegetarian or vegan, campaign for stronger animal welfare legislation and the recognition of animal sentience in law.

So again, how you think about these issues in a philosophical level makes a really big difference to your actions and practices as a human being and the way you live your life.

Let's check our understanding.

According to Peter Singer, what is the key factor in deciding how we should treat a being?

A: whether the being is human, B: whether humans get enjoyment, C: whether the being suffers, D: whether the being is useful to humans?

Think about what Peter Singer said about avoiding speciesism and focusing on sentientism.

Excellent.

The answer is C, whether the being suffers.

That is the key factor for Peter Singer.

Okay, let's think about everything we've been learning about this.

I've got a statement for you here.

"Consciousness matters more than sentience when deciding how to treat non-human animals.

" I'd like you to discuss this statement with a partner or group, and I'd like you to use a grid to record your arguments for or against this statement.

Then I'd like you to swap the grid with another pair or group, read their arguments, and then add a question to each side of the grid and pass it back.

Discuss the questions on your grid and highlight the ideas which matter most.

Be ready to report back on what you think matters when deciding how to treat non-human animals.

So we've been thinking in this lesson about what is most important.

Is it the idea that animals have consciousness, that they are aware of who they are, that they are beings in their own right and that they can understand their surroundings?

So if they feel things like pain, it's because they understand that as a conscious animal, or is the most important thing the idea of sentience, what really matters is whether something can feel pain or pleasure, and that's the most important thing to worry about when treating animals?

I want you to think about why someone might say that consciousness matters more or why someone might say sentience matters more.

But I really want you to look at what other people say as well.

Read their arguments and then add a question to what they say.

Have they thought of something which you didn't think about?

Really look forward to seeing what you all come up with.

I hope you've had a really interesting discussion.

So you might have come up with some ideas like this.

Conscious beings can reflect and make meaningful choices.

Conscious beings form relationships that deserve moral consideration.

And then someone might have asked a question like: why should having self-awareness mean one animal should be treated better than another?

So should we treat humans better because they have consciousness, even though animals might not?

Against this, you might have said something like: Any animal that can feel pain or pleasure deserve protection.

Preventing suffering is the most important concern.

That's what Peter Singer argued.

And then against that, a question we might have asked is: If an animal can suffer, should its wellbeing matter more than an animal that is conscious but not suffering?

You may have come up with some ideas of your own based on these ideas.

You might have reported back something like: Sentience matters most because all animals can suffer, though consciousness can make some animals' lives more important.

You might have disagreed and thought that consciousness is really important that all animals do have consciousness.

I hope, anyway, you've really begun to think about these big ideas of consciousness and sentience and what might matter most.

Let's summarize our ideas so far.

So we've been thinking about this idea of sentience and animal consciousness.

Consciousness means being aware of existence, thoughts and surroundings, and researchers study it through psychology, behavior, and neuroscience.

Some see animal behaviors as evidence of consciousness, but others see it as instinct or conditioning.

Primates, dolphins, crows, and elephants show complex behaviors, but critics argue that these are learned or biological.

Sentience, the capacity to feel pain or pleasure, gives a clearer basis for welfare.

People like Peter Singer argues that recognizing sentience means rejecting speciesism and reducing suffering.

I wonder how you found this lesson?

I wonder how it changed your ideas?

I wonder what you think of now in terms of these big ideas of sentience and consciousness?

.