Modern life seems to be expanding the sphere of ethical consideration. Discouraging racism and sexism is now mainstream, whereas 200 years ago women and slaves were considered property. Should we now enlarge the ethical sphere further to protect animals? Or is it enough to look out for the interests of our own species?
Over 100 million animals are estimated to be used in laboratory experiments worldwide each year. Many of these experiments raise difficult ethical questions about the balance between scientific progress and animal welfare.
Many people in today’s society easily forget that much of human civilization still rests on the backs of animals. But after you remember this, should it trouble you? It’s tempting to think that it shouldn’t. After all, humans are the top of the food chain. However, even the most proud human beings can’t help but cringe when they hear about the treatment of dogs in dog-fighting rings or the way cows, pigs, and chickens are treated on modern factory-farm lots. It’s pretty ugly stuff.
Think about a time when you witnessed or heard about animals being mistreated. Did you feel bothered, or did you justify it? Why do you think you reacted the way you did?
Face it: Animals don’t have dominance over the planet, and they can’t stand up for themselves the way humans can. So, if ethics requires humanity to protect animals, it’s really humanity’s job to take the lead. The fact that animals suffer seems to suggest that they deserve some kind of protection, so humanity has some work to do.
In this lesson, you’ll explore some of the basic arguments for the ethical treatment of animals, including insights from philosophers like Peter Singer. Then, you’ll apply those arguments to two big questions: Should we experiment on animals? And is it moral to eat them?
Ethics isn’t just about humans; the ability of animals to experience pain and suffering gives us strong reasons to consider their interests in our moral decisions.
Focusing on the Premise of Animal Rights
Usually when people discuss ethics, they’re talking about the ethical duties of human beings toward other human beings. The 19th and 20th centuries saw the introduction of a new subject for ethical concern: animals. Why animals, you may ask? The main reason people have for including animals in ethical thinking is that animals turn out to share lots of what makes humanity ethically special. This shouldn’t be too surprising; humans are animals! The rest of the animal kingdom has the capacity to experience pain and pleasure just like humans.
Why do you think the ability to suffer or feel pleasure is important when considering whether someone (or something) deserves moral consideration?
We should only worry about animal ethics after we’ve solved all human ethical problems.
Humans are capable of improving themselves on several levels at once—addressing animal issues doesn’t mean ignoring human ones.
- Life would be slow going if humans constrained themselves to eliminating only the most despicable evils first. Societies need to stop people from murdering one another, but that doesn’t mean citizens shouldn’t also work at keeping their promises and preventing black eyes. Humans are capable of improving themselves on several levels at once, aren’t they?
- The reasons to be ethical to other human beings also seem to count for animals. If you’re refraining from hitting other human beings because it would cause them harm, you may want to consider whether the same reason applies to animals.
Here’s an example to help you understand what we mean: When Adam is behind on a deadline, Chris may want to beat him with a stick until he submits something. That wouldn’t be terribly ethical, though, because it would cause Adam a great deal of pain and suffering. If causing pain and suffering is a good ethical reason not to do something, it should be a good ethical reason not to harm any organism that can feel pain and suffering.
The capacity to experience pain or pleasure is a central reason for considering an organism’s interests in moral decision-making.
“…the question is not, ‘Can they reason?’ nor ‘Can they talk?’ but ‘Can they suffer?’”
Jeremy Bentham
Want to go deeper? The science behind animal emotions and pain
Research in animal behavior and neuroscience shows that many animals possess nervous systems similar to our own, allowing them to experience a range of emotions and sensations, including pain. For example, studies have shown that mammals, birds, and even some fish respond to painful stimuli in ways similar to humans—seeking relief, showing distress, and even developing anxiety. This scientific understanding strengthens the ethical arguments for considering animal suffering.
- Ethics is expanding to include non-human animals as subjects of moral concern.
- The ability to feel pain and pleasure is a crucial factor in deciding who deserves ethical consideration.
Questioning Whether Humans Really Are Superior to Animals
Humanity’s relationship with animals is complicated. Humans use oxen as beasts of burden in the field, dogs as trusted pets and companions, and cows for the occasional cheeseburger. But for most of human history, humans have viewed animals as lesser beings. Humans see animals as tools or resources for their own purposes rather than as equals. In fact, this has been one of the secrets of human success.
In many cultures, animal welfare laws have evolved over time. For example, several European countries have banned certain forms of animal testing and require humane treatment of livestock, reflecting a shift in how society values animals.
- Humans’ capacity for thought: Many believe human beings are superior because of their capacity for sophisticated thought. It’s not altogether clear, however, that animals can’t think or that thinking should be the ethical barometer humans think it is.
Observational studies have documented crows using tools, apes engaging in complex social strategies, and dolphins passing self-awareness tests—all challenging the idea that only humans are capable of thought.
Animals do a lot more thinking than humans give them credit for. When you look out into the animal kingdom, you see cats contemplating how to pounce on their prey, orangutans and other primates involved in bitter turf wars that require coordinated action, and even crows that can learn to use tools. Animals appear to be using their brains in activity that sure looks a lot like thinking! And although humans are capable of far greater feats of thinking than any animal we know about — it’s not like animals go around solving Sudoku or doing nuclear physics — perhaps humans only differ from animals in how they think and in what they think about, not whether they can think at all.
But even if animals can think, why should thinking be the ability that’s used to mark off humanity’s superiority? Sure, thinking is pretty useful, but other animals can do some pretty useful things as well. Birds, for instance, can fly. Some fish spend their whole lives in pressurized environments that would instantly kill human beings. Cockroaches will survive long after nuclear explosions. If these animals were the ones making the ethical rules, maybe birds would be discriminating against “inferior” human beings who lack the capacity for flight.
- The Bible: Some of the explanation for human superiority over animals is in the Western world’s cultural ties to the Bible. In Genesis, God gives Adam dominion over the animal kingdom. But remember that even cultures that have never heard of the Bible use animals for human purposes.
- Animals’ lack of souls: In Western philosophy, the view of animals as beneath human beings is reinforced by centuries of thought maintaining that animals are separated from humans by their lack of a soul. René Descartes… maintained that animals’ lack of souls meant they weren’t “thinking things.” He thought that because of this, they couldn’t experience pleasure and pain. This made them no different from other mechanical machines, which most people would agree are owed no form of ethical respect.
Is it fair to use intelligence or religious beliefs as the main reason for treating animals differently? What other criteria might matter more?
A utilitarian view that humanity should give equal moral weight to the interests of all beings capable of suffering, regardless of their species.
Be careful with this rationale. You probably shouldn’t side with Descartes here. Modern views of animals have left this view behind for the most part. It’s difficult enough to argue that humans have souls, let alone animals.
Seeing Why Peter Singer Says Animals Feel Pain Too
The reason pain and suffering matters in discussions of animal rights is that an awful lot of unethical actions involve causing unwanted pain. Stabbing, beating, abuse, torture, getting killed and eaten, and lots of other wicked things revolve around pain. If you’re in pain, you generally have a reason to stop that pain. If someone else is in unwanted pain, you also have a reason to stop that pain. If it’s wrong to subject humans to unwanted painful sensations, it’s probably wrong to subject animals to those sensations as well.
Perhaps the most famous advocate of animal rights in recent years is philosopher Peter Singer. Singer is widely credited with igniting the modern animal rights movement with his book Animal Liberation. His main reasoning is utilitarian: Singer wants as little suffering and as much happiness to exist in the world as possible. Unfortunately, when most people think of suffering, they only think of human suffering. But animals suffer too. So Singer wants to include them in ethical thinking as well. To do this, he invokes what he calls the principle of equal consideration of interests.
What question did Jeremy Bentham say is most important when considering animals in ethics?
Tap to reveal“Can they suffer?”—Bentham argued the capacity to suffer is what matters ethically, not reasoning or speech.
What is the Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests?
Tap to revealIt’s Peter Singer’s idea that we should give equal moral weight to the interests of all beings capable of suffering, human or not.
What key argument challenges the idea that humans are superior because of their intelligence?
Tap to revealOther animals excel at unique abilities (like flying or surviving extreme environments), so intelligence alone shouldn’t decide moral worth.
Imagine you are an animal living in modern society. Reflect on what your day-to-day experiences might be like.
- Pick an animal (e.g., cow, dog, chicken, lab mouse).
- Write a short narrative (3–5 sentences) from the animal’s perspective, describing your biggest daily challenge or moment of suffering.
- Consider: Does knowing this change how you view ethical obligations to animals?
What responsibilities do you think humans have toward animals, and where do you personally draw the line? Should your diet, shopping habits, or entertainment choices change based on what you’ve learned here?
What key idea did philosopher Peter Singer introduce to support animal rights?
The main ethical reason for considering animals is their capacity to suffer, not their intelligence, language, or other abilities.
How confident are you that you can explain why pain and suffering matter in ethical decisions about animals?