right, you got the dot com. ah, ah, imagine intelligent aliens, discover earth were incomplete all at the elegance of their language, their art, technology, and their wisdom. but shortly after they arrive, the aliens begin to put us in cramped stalls. they force females to breed, take their babies away and drink their milk. they force us to eat from morning to night, so that we're so fat that even as children we can't stand on our own. finally, as teenagers were carter dr. factories to be slaughtered honest, simply lives. we protest, but the aliens don't understand our outrage. they are far too intellectually superior. and they like the way we taste. of course,

we wouldn't agree with the aliens behavior, but would it be morally wrong? ah, when we gaze into the heavens, we might sometimes wonder how our actions will be perceived throughout eternity. some people would think that the question of what is right or wrong is entirely subjective. that it's up to me. what i think is right or wrong is what cancer and when you might have some completely different view and we just exchanging preferences, just like maybe you like indian food and i prefer chinese food. i don't believe that that's true. peter singer at princeton university is one of the most

influential philosophers today in i believe that there is scope for reason, an argument in discussing ethics. and at the very least that there are people, many people who, how positions that they haven't thought of that haven't reflected on. and that when they do reflect on it, they find that many of their beliefs not really consistent me. peter singers, world view centers on the doctrine of utilitarianism. it is trying to why the net balance of pleasure versus pain, or happiness versus suffering and to maximize that. so the, the right action for utilitarian is the action that has the best consequences for

all of those affected and best consequences here means promoting the greatest amount of well being for all of those effect. oh, if we took a utilitarian perspective and had to decide between several possible actions, we would have to consider how each will affect the happiness of all those involved . let's say we're expecting 10 guests for dinner. 3 of them like roast beef 7 like chicken. what should we cook. ringback as a doctor, should we give friends to other doctors in a disaster so that we can work together to save more people? whoa, should we hope the tobacco lobbyist who asks for directions to the german parliament, even if he is likely to cause great social hon with the extra office time he gains? by getting there quickly. as utilitarians, we calculate what each possible action would contribute to the total happiness in the universe. then we choose the one that maximizes sick

i. we direct them obvious to the woods, prioritize the other doctor, and naturally we'd make chicken. oh, that's the way you to lou terry in his works. but peter singer has taken it a step further. he asks, what about the interests of the chicken? you can't draw the line between the species because i don't believe that species is itself a morally relevant criterion. if we look back in time, we can see how the concept of a species has no clear boundary. imagine you take your mother by the hand and she takes her mother's hand and her mother takes her mother's hand back through the family tree. you follow it down for thousands and millions of years. and there's a chimpanzee somewhere in africa doing the same thing. he takes his mother's hand

and the mother takes her mother's hand back him to the past and to you, find a common mother, the chain of human beings and primates would be about 1000 kilometers long. you and the chimpanzee are distant cousins, reaching out to each other across the ages. if species were a moral boundary, then at some point there would be a mother and a child. one would be human and the other animal. one would be our moral equivalent and the other, not at all. ah, we humans far closer to a chimpanzee vantage. and pansy is it even to a dog let alone to an oyster or something that's not even a veteran. but our legal system traditionally recognizes only one distinction in the animal kingdom, homo sapiens, and everyone else here are choices. i could

sit here in the witness box. and the metaphor is that i'm a witness testifying for animals. gary francy own is professor of law and philosophy or i could sit here in the jury box. i'm one of the jurors, or he pioneer teaching animal rights in the 1980s. i could sit up here where the judges sit. he's closely examined the history of the relationship between animals and the law. your choice. in the west, before the 900 century animals were largely excluded from the moral and legal community altogether, they were regard this things. today, many countries have animal protection laws. they forbid causing animals unnecessary suffering. the thing is, is that because animals are property, our moral thinking is tremendously skewed in a very bizarre, weird directions. gerry frenchy own explains, but he sees as

a contradiction in animal protection law knowing that the laws that provide for the protection of animals are interpreted in a way that reflect their proper. their status is channel property. it, it means in essence that the laws can't really apply to them in a meaningful way because the laws don't permit us to look at use. 2 the concept of property means that the owner is able to use it, but they can't without violence. if a person wants to keep livestock, the animals must be confined and those who want to eat animals must kill them. oh. then the only question becomes, is the treatment necessary given uses that may not be necessary because the reality is we don't need to eat animals by declaring animals as property. the law

puts economic interests in competition with animal interest. that's why we accept that female pigs can be left in narrow cages for weeks. and that 23 hands can live in one square meter and turkeys who are so over fed. they can't stand up. we cut off the pigs tails, and turkey's beaks. we separate newborn camps from their mothers and simply accept that pigs in stockyards scream for their lives before their slaughtered. we except it all because we have to in order to use animals effectively. so what does it mean to say we should inflict unnecessary suffering on food animals? what does that mean? it means that we shouldn't inflict unnecessary unnecessary suffering on animals. we shouldn't inflict gratuitous suffering on animals. the laws assume that institutionalized exploitation is

a legitimate exercise of property rights. so what you end up with are cases where kids are lighting dogs on fire cats and microwave ovens those and that's, that's what you have for an animal cruelty. i have a safe week every body france, he own says there's only one way to end the routine torture of livestock animals need rights. i subscribed to a rights position. that is not a utilitarian. and i believe that all sentient beings have the right not to be regarded as property. me. he believes in alter the rights and responsibilities that always apply in de and tom g. the ethics of duty and obligation. there is no wing the good and bad consequences of an action. instead, there are universal laws that all reasonable beings in the universe can agree on.

that shall francy own, differs from peter singer and his utilitarianism. people who think that humans have rights and also those you think that animals have, i'd say there are some things that you must never do to a human no matter what the consequences. so a difference in the kinds of humans might be suppose that a terrorist had he put a nuclear bomb in the center of new york. and the only way you could find the bombing time to disarm it would be to torture the terrorist. while i really strict human rights advocate would say torture is wrong, you never have a ride to torture. so it's always a violation of human, right? utilitarian would say, if you tried everything else, and this is the only way to stop the nuclear bomb going off in the center of new york, you would be justified in torturing the terrorist. oh, he julie cherry and his him and deonte. ology are 2 of the most important schools of font with an ethical philosophy. often they result in opposite conclusions.

someone basing their choice on the ethics of responsibility would treat and injure dr. first, even if that meant you'd save fewer people, deonte ologist would show the tobacco lobby's the way to parliament. because telling people, the truth is a fixed rule. but when it comes to eating animals, both schools of thought have come to the same conclusion. the only real instance in which we'd have a debate would be about the use of animals in biomedical research to cure serious human illnesses where there is a real conflict. that's the only situation in which there is a plausible conflict that would justify using and killing animals. and so in a sense, we engage and we suffer from what i call morals gets the freeney. and i'm using that literally. i'm saying it's, it's sort of like a moral version of classical delusional. thinking on one hand, we all except that animals matter morally, no doubt about that. we except that they matter morally and we are moral

obligations that we owe directly to them to treat them humanely. into not inflict unnecessary suffering, but yet we all engage for most of us engage in behaviors which are inconsistent with that. so you'll have a situation where tonight, some people will be watching this documentary and who believe that they believe that it's wrong when float unnecessary suffering on animals. and while they're watching your documentary, they're going to be eating, they're meet in their fish and their chicken. and in a, drinking their milk and eating their eggs, which is bizarre when you think about it, they don't need to be doing that. and if they really believed what they say, they believe they wouldn't be doing any of their de smalling reflection inevitably lead to the conclusion that we must do without animal products entirely. the common starting premise is that animals like us are sentient . but what do we actually know about the inner life of animals,

which many of us eat every day? ah, for fine eggs are extremely clever. they can learn all sorts of things. university researchers, sarah windsor, is analyzing the emotions of livestock in vienna, lima. as you see, they have funding all sorts of things, especially getting into mischief. she wants to understand their inner live sas of a thing. and most important thing is that we ask questions in a way that can be understood in a picky way. so and 5, and again, find it. dest. thank issue. in the experiment, the pigs ring, bells, open doors, and push buttons. boy, if i think we're trying to draw conclusions about the animals emotions from their behavior, physiology and cognition to the pig solve complex problems, they're able to learn what happens behind each door and differentiate between long

and short sounds. yes. oh fine. good. thank cushion, seeking one to think very alice fine and these are actually pigs that we're late to be fat slaughtered and the meat sold. that's also quite relevant for us. and you also see that these animals have such a rich repertoire behaviors. they can learn and we see what types of personalities they have had. no peak is like another, as a does, can't find it. as i live, you can tell them apart from their character. don't worry about the animals have names allen, the doctor, the doctoral candidates work with an every day, and they really know them on and that's not easy. and we talk about it a lot. did a necessity, w. i. and it works to me personally, for example, because we are hoping to generate data and knowledge that will actually help a very large group of animals alessa until it

mm. and it's not just piques were surprisingly like us many farm animals have astonishingly complex in our lives. chickens are able to add up to 5. sheep can distinguish between photographs of different people. researchers have even been able to demonstrate that cows actually experience joy when they learn something new. on the basic hypothesis of animal ethics that animals have feelings and interests can hardly be rationally denied. but where do we draw the line to mushrooms, maybe have mines or bacteria or plants. ah, if the organism or an entity has it, then it is something, it's like to be that entity. evolutionary biologist, john mallet, is focused precisely on the distinction between the sentiment and non center world

. the functional causes is to take many types of sensory information from hall, our senses, and assembling that into a mapped picture of the world. saw of a simulated theater of the mind. john mallett has examined countless brains. from this he developed his theory of the formation of consciousness. he says that anyone who wants to understand why feeling came into the world, needs to take a trip back in time to our pilots, ancient history to the early cambrian period. the story starts out a little over a half a 1000000000 years ago with c. scott, i'm a potion floor. it's called my cro beyond. mack, these microbial mats are made up of bacteria and algae, a layer of one celled organisms like a giant green carpet of plaque on the seafloor. it was maybe this thick are all the

shall see floors on earth interest, a tremendous nutrient source, a tremendous food source. the 1st animals existed at this time, but we wouldn't recognize them as animals today. some of them were really bizarre, anchored to the mat, and then they were like sheep like leaves. but the ones who are most interested in here is worms. there were so many different kinds of worms, as we see by their warm trails. it was even called a warm world. there's a big difference between this world world and today's animal kingdom. there apparently was no predation at all. it was a world without claws and teeth and the worms as the most active animals at the time to seem perfectly happy and satisfied with their rich buffet of their food source of the microbial mat. and then everything changed.

the 1st worms began to eat one another. it was probably just as simple as one species of worm, starting with scavenging finding. half rotten piece of worm and finding that's a really rich nutrient source and then to specialize on eating other living worms of other species. that's how these worms, more or less by accident became the world's 1st meat eaters. and with that, it's set off a huge competition, a huge competitive cambrian arms re at dynamic speeds. it took a few 1000000 years. the hunted animals developed diverse strategies to protect themselves from predators. shellfish came into existence. worms learned to bury themselves in the sand, but the most interesting counter strategy against predation was fast escape.

up to this point, life on earth followed a slow rhythm of growth just as plants do today. but if you wanted to respond to threaten real time, then you had to be able to accurately perceive the world around you. that led to the evolution of camera image forming highs where they could see the predators coming real sensitive skin, or they could feel vibrations from predators coming or for a really great sense of smell. so they could smell that in predators in the area and could be, could becoming the most decisive factor for successful escape was knowing that predators could still be there even when sensors didn't perceive them. at that moment, the inner stage was born, and with it consciousness, the predators were evolving in the same way. in order to catch a pray and pray that had well pray that moved away fast. the predators also had

evolved image forming camera eyes, so they could see their whole environment. just like the pray could. they could build this theater stage of the mind that i told you about. and along with consciousness came feelings, giving significance to the impressions on the inner stage. if there is a big, big, dangerous predator coming suddenly, that gets assigned lots and lots of a poor importance. and the importance ranking of all the things on our theater stage. from an evolutionary standpoint, feelings exist primarily to save us from being eaten animals talented and perceiving pain and fear prevail. the tax on that was best at escaping the predators was our own ancestors. the 1st vertebrates the, the 1st fish ah, all of the vertebrates of today descended from these 1st flight animals, fish and fabian's reptiles, birds and mammals. and the 1st predators turned into the answer prod since of

follow pods of to day. insect spiders, crabs and octopuses had the 1st predators as their ancestors. and we're linked to all of them by the magical capability of feeling. but that would mean for, for all the other organisms, the, the lights are out. there's nothing, it's like to be them home. so a line can actually be drawn. there is life without consciousness, plants, and funky, and perhaps worms, muscles or jelly fish. their movements are just reflexes because they're unable to feel anything. what we do to them doesn't matter to them. and there are animals that can suffer animals like us and the ones we eat. if we want to avoid inflicting suffering, that it makes an enormous difference. which beings we choose to eat for nourishment . doesn't that say it all from a moral standpoint?

ah. oh, visitors to new orleans, louisiana can observe an extremely rare species. dan shahan is a philosopher who argues in favor of eating meat. it's so easy to make bad arguments here, like you've heard bad arguments and there at the tip of your tongue. you know, this is tasty, so therefore i should eat it. ah, that's not a good argument. we need to, to take this a lot more seriously. if we're going to formulate a genuine defense of this practice that most people engage in every day. his argument starts at the supermarket, the hidden one. think that might be our winner. i'm sure. for him, there's

a difference between buying a pork shoulder to barbecue with neighbors, and being responsible for the conditions in which an animal is kept and killed. the impact of one sale is so small, it hardly makes a difference. a grosser can't afford to make their decisions about what items to stock in a way that would be sensitive to whether or not one person decides to have you know, toefl for dinner tonight or pork chops. he sees vegetarianism as a type of activism but he says vegetarian behavior will only have an effect when many people take it up. but even if you think that individuals don't make a really tangible difference, it's surely the case that the vegetarian movement overall is making that kind of impact. we should celebrate them. we should applaud down to the extent i disagree

with the vegetarians. it is mainly because vetted terrence often think that it's wrong not to be a vegetarian. and that's the thing i don't think is right. there are a tremendous number of really important problems in the world that are crying out for people to tackle them. and my view is just that it's ok for people to focus on some of them. and, you know, except that they're not going to tackle every problems. that's the central point of shars argument. one person alone can not be active in all social movements at the same time. that's why no one is obligated to take part in a certain movement just as we don't need everybody to be hospital nurses. just as we don't need everybody to be farmers right. we don't need every ready to be the same kind of activist what we need are activists of many kinds tackling many different kinds of problems and collectively working to make the world

a better place. ready shars theses sound convincing a single purchase makes no difference, and not all people should commit to the same things. but what if we take those thoughts further? how would we answer pet of files who could make the very same argument that downloading a single image makes no difference at all. and that instead of supporting the rights of children, we should commit to another good cause. can something that is morally wrong, really be so easily rationalize. eliminate any player hand me make it happen. what remains is more likely our admission that doing without animal products is harder for us than we wish it to be. but what would happen if you take taste out of the equation, researchers all over the world have long been looking for alternate ways for us to satisfy our appetite for meet

the ah, ah, with with in good shape cancer, the risk to develop it is increasing even for the young, what are the causes? how can you protect yourself?

how can you recognize the early sy preventing cancer? what you do in good shape. next, on d, w. we la euro, we love diversity. and anything unusual, no mountain is too high, and no road is too long. in search of the extraordinary we are the specialists of the lifestyle europe, your ro, max. in 60 minutes on d, w. ah. nico is in germany to learn german lodge, benita, why not learn with him online,

on your mobile and free, just see w's e learning course eco's fake. not just another day. so much is happening all at once. we take time to understand this is the day and in depth look at the current news events analyzed by experts and critical thinkers. this is the day weekdays on d w. o dinner, there's a cancer vaccine. it's true getting the human papilloma virus, or h p v vaccine before having sex for the 1st time can reduce the risk of cervical throats for pinole, kansas, that there are no vaccines for more than 300.