Ethical theories and nonhuman animals

This video turns to what different kinds of ethical theories imply about how we should treat animals. We will see that despite their differences, they all imply (or are at least compatible with) full moral consideration of animals. We should therefore challenge speciesism regardless of which moral theory we accept.
In this course about wild animal suffering, you'll learn about the plight of animals living in the wild. Find out what the lives of the most numerous animals - invertebrates - are actually like and get an overview of evidence of their sentience (consciousness). Hear what the contemporary debates in animal ethics are and how they relate to showing moral consideration for nonhuman animals. Find out about a proposed field of research called welfare biology, the study of the wellbeing of animals living in the wild.
Please subscribe to our TH-cam channel and click on the notification bell to get notified when new videos are released.
If you're interested in learning more about the subject, we have many articles on our website on the topics covered in the course.
www.animal-eth...
Facebook: / animal-ethics-14246584...
Instagram: / animal.ethics
Twitter: / animalethics
Reddit: / animal-ethics.org
Attribution:
Videos:
· The Three Harvesteers. Mike Lewinski. CC BY 2.0 Generic license
bit.ly/2VnmjDd
· Bhutan Animal Rescue and Care (BARC) - Thimphu Shelter. Bhutan Animal Rescue and Care. Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)
• Bhutan Animal Rescue a...
Music: Over Again. Borrtex. Under CC BY-NC 4.0 International. freemusicarchi...

[@AnimalEthics]

You can read more about Ethical theories and nonhuman animals here: bit.ly/3M9N4UL

[@VgnRaj]

Such a meaningful message need not be delivered this solemnly. A dynamic motivational approach will reach more people than a smaller group of scholars.

[@AndrewBroz]

Wouldn't it still be still be consistent with a utilitarian system to prioritize some classes of sentient beings over others if there exist differences in quality or quantity of potential suffering and pleasure for certain classes? For example, the utility value of suffering or pleasure may be properly weighted according to order of consciousness (there may be orders of zero weight, or non-linear weighting systems based on order under certain assumptions), suffering/pleasure bandwidth may be the proper way to determine moral weight (perhaps proportional to number of certain kinds of neurons or to number of relevant neural connections), etc. You see views like this from Douglas Hofstadter and other thinkers. It's not obvious to me that this class of views is wrong, and if accepted it raises serious questions about any line of reasoning which gives equal weight to all individual sentiences.

[@AnimalEthics]

The key here is equal consideration of interests. If we follow that, we wouldn't give greater moral consideration to classes of animals that are *capable* of feeling more. We would only consider how much pain, for example, they are actually experiencing relative to another animal's pain, regardless of species.
Animal Ethics does not promote any specific ethical framework, but greater moral consideration for nonhuman animals is consistent with all major ethical frameworks.

[@AndrewBroz]

@@AnimalEthics Firstly, thank you for the reply, and thank you for encouraging greater moral consideration for nonhuman animals. Your work is important and deeply appreciated.
"We would only consider how much pain, for example, they are actually experiencing relative to another animal's pain, regardless of species" is strictly correct, but if the ethical system believes the quality of pain/pleasure is different, this can lead to strict resolutions into different classes. Additional unstated assumptions that may lead to the practical consideration to different sentient being classes differently, even if there is only a qualitative distinction, would be about the distribution of pain/pleasure they experience in the environments in which they exist.
I'm only continuing with this question because it has serious consequences, especially in the ethics of agriculture, but also in which initiatives we should focus on to help wildlife. If we focus on initiatives which attempt to reduce suffering for the maximum number of sentiences, it may be practically and financially optimal to focus on small invertebrates, for example, simply because of the numbers involved.

[@cetviesauthor-writer.3043]

but regarding utilitarianism, the pleasure you give to the poorest is thousands of times more qualitative than the one you give to a richer person, isn't it counted within the theory? (i wonder whether it is not discussed in Dahl theory of democracy).

[@UnknownDino]

Still seems like it could be justified by utilitarianism to me. When you give to the poor you help someone desperate who if not helped they could resort to crime and be harmful to your offspring. The fact that we get emotional when we do that, could be a byproduct of evolution. Our body has gained the ability to deeply reward us whenever we are kind to the ones who are suffering. Also could be telling of our ability to sympathize with another creature. One thing is weird though and might go against what I just wrote. We even feel really good when feeding a hungry kitten, not just a hungry human.

[@cetviesauthor-writer.3043]

Je viens de lire que deontologie c'est aussi une forme et un point de vue tres particulier qu'on se fait de l'ethique. par example une approche deontologique voudrait que le vol est toujours mal. c'est a dire que prendre aux riches pour donner aux pauvres est toujours mal, et donc sanctionné. Remarque si le vol etait toujours puni, il n'y aurait pas de si riches...

[@Paty0101]

Sorry pour les fautes d ortographe mais cest pas ma langue maternelle au cas oú il ne manquerait pas les cons qui aiment bien reprendre

[@Paty0101]

Un jours viendra oú les etres innocents les animaux non humains pourront etre en paix et ceci sera quand les animaux humains les etres les plus abjects arretairont de exister

[@Paty0101]

Ahimsa respets pour les innocents, les etres pures qui nont jamais faute et ne fauteront jamais,leur ames est pure et sont les vraie victimes des la barbarie et stupidites des animaux humains. Les animaux humains sont les seules nuissiblez et meritent de disparaitre