Lesson video

Hi there.

My name's Mr. Robertson.

I love RE, and I'm delighted to be learning with you today.

We have a really fascinating question that looks and contributes to our inquiry question, how should the Earth's resources be used? And in this lesson, we're going to be focusing on the philosopher Peter Singer and his idea of animal rights.

And we're going to analyse what does Peter Singer mean by this and what relevance might this have for our thinking today.

By the end of this lesson, you will be able to explain Peter Singer's argument against speciesism and think about how it can be used to argue for animal rights.

We have two keywords in our lesson today.

First is this, speciesism, which is the belief that one species is more important than another, and the second keyword is sentience, which is the ability to experience pain and pleasure.

As we go through this lesson, you're going to be able to understand and use those words.

So in this lesson we've got two parts.

In the first part, we're going to be asking this question, what is speciesism? So let's start with a scenario.

I want you to imagine you are faced with a difficult moral question.

How would you try to think it through? What steps might you take to work out what to do? Philosophy is about thinking and arguing clearly.

So you might want to spend a minute just thinking about what you might do in a difficult moral question.

How might you think about trying to work out what to do? What would you use to help you? So philosophers use tools to think more deeply about right and wrong, and one tool they use is a thought experiment.

A thought experiment presents an imaginary situation that challenges us to explain the reasons behind our choices.

And these can be really helpful.

Thought experiments can help us question our gut reactions, and they can help us spot inconsistencies in our thinking.

Because the scenario is an imaginary scenario, we can take some of the emotion out of it because it's not about what you would really do with real people or real situations.

So you can think a little bit about, why am I thinking like that? Why do I feel like that? Is my thinking making sense? Here's a thought experiment for you to consider.

Scientists are testing a new medicine.

It's not dangerous, but it may cause temporary discomfort like confusion, stress, and physical pain.

You have to decide who to test it on.

You must choose one of two subjects to test it on.

Neither has given their consent to the experiment, and you are unable to speak to either of the subjects to find out more information about them.

Subject A, they're aware of their surroundings, they show signs of their anxiety.

They can feel pain, distress, and discomfort.

Subject B is also aware and anxious, but they have a medical condition, which means they cannot feel pain or physical discomfort.

I wonder who you would choose to experiment on and why.

So a really quick recap.

You've got this new medicine, it's not going to really damage someone.

It might cause some stress and anxiety.

You have two subjects.

You have to choose either subject A or subject B.

Who would you choose and why? This might be a great time to pause the video and think for yourself or discuss with some people around you.

Sam and Lucas discuss who they would choose to test the medicine.

Sam says, "I'd pick subject B.

They can't feel pain, so it's more ethical to test the medicine on them rather than subject A, who can also feel physical pain." Lucas says, "I'd pick subject B too.

Subject A already seems distressed, and it feels wrong to cause them more suffering, when subject B will probably suffer less." I wonder what you think about Sam and Lucas' ideas.

Do they think what you thought? What did you think? And what do you think about their ideas? You find out that subject A is a chimpanzee, and subject B is a human being.

Does this change your initial answer? Why? Again, you might want to pause the video here.

Now you know that subject A could feel distress, and was distressed, is a chimpanzee, whereas subject B was a human being, does that change your mind about who you would originally do the experiment on and why? Sam and Lucas explain how the new information affects their decisions.

Sam says, "I still choose subject B.

The chimpanzee would still suffer more.

It feels unfair to pick based on subject B being human." Lucas says, "I'd definitely swap to subject A.

Even if they feel less physical pain, human life is always more valuable.

We have a duty to protect humans first." Mm, interesting.

What do you think about Sam and Lucas' arguments? Do you find one more persuasive than the other? Does one of those resonate with your ideas yourself? Peter Singer is an Australian philosopher.

You can see a photograph of him there.

And he argues that animals, like humans, can suffer and that this suffering matters.

He calls it speciesism, when we give less weight to animal suffering simply because they're not human.

Let's just check what we've understood so far.

True or false? Singer argues that animal suffering does not matter.

Pause the video, have a think.

Excellent.

It's false, isn't it? Because Singer argues that animals can suffer like humans, and this suffering matters, and he calls it speciesism if we don't think it does matter.

Speciesism is the belief that humans are superior simply for being human, and that leads to unfair treatment of other animals.

The word comes from Latin.

Species means a kind or type, and ism means a kind of discrimination like racism or sexism.

And Peter Singer wrote a book called "Animal Liberation," which popularised this term, and this book has been hugely influential on campaigners all over the world in terms of their thinking about animals.

According to Peter Singer, Lucas' response shows speciesism.

Let's just remind ourselves what Lucas said.

"I'd definitely swap to subject A.

Even if they feel less physical pain, human life is always more valuable.

We have a duty to protect humans first." Is Lucas showing an example of speciesism, true or false? Excellent.

It's true, isn't it? Because Lucas is saying that humans are more important, more valuable than other animals.

Peter Singer believes in the principle of equality.

By that, he means that we should give equal considerations to everyone's interests.

However, this equality does not apply just to humans.

What really matters is sentience, the ability to feel pain and pleasure.

If a being can suffer, its suffering should count.

And we shouldn't give more importance to someone just because they're human.

Peter Singer links to the philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who said, "It's the ability to suffer, not intelligence or language, that matters." Treating animals unfairly just because they're not human is called speciesism.

Let's think about what we've just learned there.

Which of the following is not a reason Peter Singer believes we should give equal consideration to animals as well as humans? A, animals are sentient and can feel pain and pleasure; B, intelligence or language should not decide moral worth; C, all suffering should count equally, no matter the species; D, humans are more important because they can reason and talk.

Which of those is not something that Peter Singer would say? Excellent.

D, humans are more important.

Peter Singer thought that there should be equality.

Peter Singer's argument against speciesism can be shown like this.

One, animals are sentient; they can feel pleasure and pain.

Two, what really matters morally is sentience.

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

Three, causing animal suffering just because they're not human is unfair and speciesist.

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

So a very clear, logical, philosophical train of thought going from animals being sentient to considering the interests of all sentient beings equally.

Okay, we're going to check our understanding by inserting some words that fit this argument.

Look at the sentences.

What would the missing words be in these sentences? So we might have said animals are sentient.

They can feel pleasure and pain.

What matters morally is sentience, so we should give equal consideration to the interests of all sentient beings.

Causing animals suffering because they're not human is unfair and speciesist.

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

Brilliant if you found the words to insert there.

Okay, we've been asking the question, what is speciesism? Lucas, Laura, and Sam have got different answers.

I wonder who is correct and why.

Lucas says, "Speciesism is the belief that animals can feel pain and pleasure, which makes their suffering important too." Laura says, "Speciesism means thinking humans are better than animals just because they're human, so animals don't matter as much." Sam says, "Speciesism means treating humans and animals fairly by caring about their pain and needs equally." Which of those makes the most sense? Which of these describes the idea of speciesism? Great thinking, everyone.

Actually, Laura is right, because speciesism is about thinking humans are better than animals, unfairly favouring humans over animals, whereas actually we should be thinking about all sentient beings equally.

Lucas is wrong because he's described sentience, not speciesism.

And Sam's answer is the opposite of speciesism.

It explains fairness but not what speciesism means.

So well done if you picked Laura and could give an explanation for that.

For the second part of this lesson, we're going to be thinking about speciesism in practise.

So Peter Singer argues we see speciesism in practise, particularly in how we use animals for food and animals for testing.

In each case, he encourages us to ask this question: are we putting human desires above animal suffering? And if we are, this is going to be speciesism.

So let's consider the first one, the use of animals for food.

Peter Singer says that eating animals is one of the clearest examples of speciesism.

In modern countries, most people eat meat by choice, not because they need it to survive.

In fact, we can be healthy without it.

So why is eating animals speciesist according to Singer? Singer says eating animals becomes a moral problem when we choose our own pleasure, like enjoying the taste of meat, over the suffering of animals.

For example, in factory farms, animals are kept in small, unnatural spaces and treated like machines.

They're often in pain and distress their whole lives just so humans can have cheap meat.

He argues this is unfair because it puts a minor human interest, like our taste and enjoyment, what's convenient for us, above a major animal interest about avoiding pain and suffering.

That goes against the idea that we should care equally about all sentient beings.

Singer says that people who must eat animals to survive, for example, Inuits living in harsh environments, that's justified.

But for the rest of us, especially when we can eat plants or other foods, causing this much harm to animals is not morally acceptable.

I wonder what you think about this argument.

What do you think about this idea of eating animals being speciesist? Do you agree with him? Why do you think what you do? Where do your ideas come from? So let's check our understanding.

Why, according to Peter Singer, is eating animals often speciesist? A, because animals are more important than humans.

B, because humans' enjoyment of meat outweighs animals' suffering.

C, because we choose our own pleasure over animals' suffering, even when we don't need to.

D, because farming animals is bad for the environment.

Excellent.

It's C, because he argued that when we eat meat, we choose our own minor pleasures, like tasting and enjoying something, over the much bigger aspect of animal suffering, especially as for most of us on the planet, we don't need to do that.

Well done if you got that right.

The other area that Singer is really concerned about is the use of animals in testing.

So Singer criticises how animals are used in experiments and that in many cases this is also speciesist.

Scientists often test medicines or even cosmetics on animals to check if they're safe.

But these tests can cause pain and suffering or even death.

Some are especially cruel.

For example, putting chemicals in rabbit's eyes or giving animals large doses of a substance to see what causes death.

Singer points out that many of these experiments are for products we don't really need, like extra shampoos or food colorings.

He criticises experiments where animals are kept in awful conditions just to study their behaviour.

Singer argues it's speciesist to test on animals just because they aren't human.

Singer says we wouldn't test on humans with severe brain damage, people who are less aware of what's happening, so we shouldn't test on animals either.

If animals can suffer just like these humans, it's unfair to treat them differently because they are different species.

So according to Singer, why is animal testing often speciesist? So you might have mentioned something about the idea of whether all of this testing according to Singer is necessary, whether animals who can suffer, suffer unnecessary suffering just for humans.

I wonder what you think about this argument.

Do you agree with him that it's speciesist to test on animals, or do you think that animal testing might be necessary? Again, you might want to pause the video and think a little bit about what your worldview is on this.

Let's check our understanding again.

So according to Peter Singer, why is animal testing often speciesist? Is it A, because animals are smarter than humans in some cases; B, because we test on animals just because they're not human, even though they suffer; C, because animals are able to communicate better than humans in some cases; D, because he argues we should really only test on humans and never on animals? Which of those makes most sense? Excellent.

It's B, because we test on animals because they're not human, even though they can suffer as well.

Let's think about our final task.

Singer says that similar problems about speciesism can arise in other areas, like fur farming, hunting, circuses, and zoos.

And he encourages us to apply his earlier arguments to these cases.

So I would like you to do some philosophical thinking yourself.

I'd like you to use what we've learned today about what Peter Singer is saying.

I'd like you to see if you can apply his thinking to either fur farming, hunting, circuses, or zoos, and see if you can see how he might say they show speciesism.

You might want to think about questions like, are humans putting their own wants, relatively minor things he would say, like fashion, sport, entertainment, above animal suffering? We are just going to remind you by showing the example of animals as foods.

This gives you an idea of how you might do it.

So we talked about the fact that humans often use it as food, and we talked about what Singer said was it shows speciesism because humans choose pleasure or convenience, like liking the taste of meat or wanting something that's cheap and easy, over the animal suffering, especially when we don't need to eat animals to survive.

So from Singer's perspective, that's a clear case of speciesism, particularly as animals can suffer and animals are sentient.

I'd like you to choose two from circuses, hunting, fur farming, and zoos.

You might want to do a little bit of research yourself just to get a bit more information about this.

And how do you think that Singer would see this as speciesist? Well, I bet you've done some really amazing thinking here.

In terms of the fur trade, you might have said something like: animals are killed for their fur just to make clothes or accessories, and that shows speciesism because we value things like fashion and profit over the animal's life and suffering.

In terms of hunting, you might have said, well, why are people hunting animals? They do this out of sport or tradition or entertainment.

However, it causes suffering or death of the animal, and it's not needed for survival.

Hunting is not necessary for most people in the world nowadays.

You might talk about in circuses, animals can be forced to perform tricks which might be unnatural for them.

They're often kept in poor conditions.

They can't create their own natural behaviours, and that suffering is purely for human entertainment.

And you might have said around zoos that animals are kept in captivity.

They may not be kept in a space that is big enough for them.

Singer might argue that that is mainly for human entertainment or education and it isn't for their benefit.

And so their suffering is not worth it.

So here we are using Singer's thinking to try and analyse how he might respond to areas like the fur trade, hunting, circuses, and zoos, and we're applying his definition of speciesism here.

If you've managed to do that and you've come up with some ways in which Singer might argue that speciesism occurs in practise, that's absolutely brilliant and well done.

Okay, let's summarise what we've been thinking today about this idea of Peter Singer and animal rights.

So we learned, didn't we, that philosophical tools like thought experiments can help us reflect on our own views about animals.

We looked at that thought experiment about who we would test on.

We've talked about Peter Singer and how he argued against speciesism, which is the idea that it's unfair to treat beings worse just because they're not human.

We learned that what Singer thinks matters morally is sentience, the ability to feel pain and pleasure, and we should consider the interests of all sentient beings equally.

Key examples where speciesism often happens, according to Singer, are using animals for food and in testing and experiments, but it may apply to other areas like the fur trade, hunting, circuses, and zoos.

I hope you've enjoyed this lesson today.

I hope it's made you think a bit more deeply about our use of animals.

I wonder what you might take away from what Peter Singer has said and his argument about sentience and speciesism and whether that might impact on your own worldview.

Hope to see you in another lesson soon.

Thank you.