 At present, I would like to focus on this topic, namely the animal ethics, a human relationship with domestic and wild animal. Once I finish this topic, I will try to address them. Now, we all know that there are species, there are endangered species, all of them. And they need our help, they are crying for it, that you please save us. And we as human beings have ignored this, have stopped listening to their cry. So, therefore, this whole idea of animal ethics or animal rights that people talk about today in 21st century, we look at that where we have gone wrong. What kind of philosophical foundation has caused this harm to the life of animals? And few of them are existing in countable number. So, this extinct animal community requires or demands, in fact, a compassionate approach which is as I was talking about, the approach which will help us not only storing them their life, not only conserving their life, but also will allow us to see that how both human beings and animals will collectively flourish in their endeavours. This flourishing attitude need not be only the personal attitude of the humans, but the humans being moral agents also allow other non-human beings to flourish. Because, as I said earlier, referring to the teleological notion of life centric ethics that every individual has got a purpose in life. They not only exist, but also try to flusom in their life, try to flourish in their life. And that attitude is inherently present in all living beings of the universe. That is the message we would like to give. But in a human-centered ethic, the kind of duties that we have shown has allowed natural environment to deteriorate. So, therefore, the human-centered ethics has to reform it, make it a life-centered ethic so that we do not allow whatever wrong has happened, has happened. Further, we do not allow the natural environment to deteriorate. Similarly, we try to protect the wilderness and that will show a kind of a responsibility that will enhance our responsibility. We do not treat ourselves as responsible agents. But our responsibility has been confined to some limited fears of our life. And therefore, the urge here is to enlarge it, to expand it. So as I was talking about moral extensionism, moral extensionism is possible if we make an attempt to enlarge the scope of our moral discourse or that will help us exhibiting a very deep sense of responsibility that a moral agent poses towards any wilderness projects that they take up. And that will also exhibit our obligations. So, we are not only obliged to our fellow human beings or we do not not only have obligation for our children, our students, our friends, but also we have obligation for other non-human beings that are there in our surrounding. So, let us expand our self and be inclusive in our approach which we will talk about a life-centered ethics where there is equality. We say that we are all equal when it comes to our social ethics in a society. We say that we are all equal, there should not be any untouchability in our society. In environmental ethics, which is life-centric in nature, that advocates a kind of equality which is biocentric, that every living being same, they are equal. That has to be a kind of a presuppositions when we talk about life-centric ethics. Then we also need to link with our past, what is good there in our past. And try to, as I was talking about, we need to rethink about our religious activities religious beliefs and try to modernize that. So, therefore, we have to see what is good there in the past and how that can be connected for preserve the value for our future generations. So, there are two things we have to do. We are living at present and we have to connect ourselves to the past, bring the good, the best of the past to us so that we cultivate in such a way that we offer a better world to our future generations. And that is how we can think of long-term value. People today have accepted, all of us, including myself, have accepted easy policies, how easily things can be done so that I live a comfortable life. Comfort is not only my requirement, my need, but it should be everybody's need. Now, everybody's need means people who are yet to come to the world, it will be also their need as well. So, therefore, it is my primary duty that I should create a value which will last long. So, when we conceptualize a policy, when we make a policy, we should see that that for another 50 years or 25 years, nothing has to be changed on that. We do not have a long-term policy. Now, we do not have the foresight to see that what will be our future generation needs, that we do not really think, but many developed nation are thinking ahead of us because they prepare a policy which will last long. So, they not only prepare policy for the present dwellers, but they also prepare policy for the future dwellers who will come and live in this beautiful world and that is how their policy to preserve or the policy to have a wilderness program as a world heritage is a meaningful project. But in our case, as my fellow participant pointed out, that many national parks, many heritage lanes are being eaten up slowly, gradually and being utilized for human purpose only. Now, once you start encroaching the land of the home of the other non-human beings, obviously, they will fight or they will disappear. Many times, you might be having this in the news that the leopard attacked few villagers, the elephants have come to the town, they have spoiled the land, things like that. That precisely is happening because we are trying to eat up their home. The forest is their home and once you destroy their home, where they will go? Either they will resist, they will be very wild or they will submit to whatever you do and in that process, they disappear and they become a sting species. So, therefore, when we talk about any policies, when we talk about ethics of a very enlightened type like life-centric ethics, we need to think of policies which will last long or which will have values for our future generation as well. That is what is my concern. Those who talk about sustainable development, they must see to it that we modify, we transform our attitude so that there is a harmony and that harmony between the individual human beings, the human beings per se and the non-human beings are maintained. If you start maintaining that, then steadily we will reach to a kind of an equilibrium. So, human living beings are not isolated beings. They are not isolated from other forms of life. If one has a deep look into the concept of life itself, one tries to re-examine the concept of life, what makes me human, then one has to connect to the other life forms. But sometimes, it is because of our ignorance that we have been utilizing them. We have been making use of their life for our well-being. And in that process, we have isolated ourselves. We have tried to claim that we belong to a different community. But life-centric ethics does not do that. Life-centric ethics respects to all forms of life. It tries to maintain that all life are to be respected. And that is how the concept of reverence of life is meaningful. Because such an approach will put us together in one community called the biotic community. And the biotic community not only think for the present generation, but will also think for future generations. I was referring to Derek Postoma yesterday. Derek Willem Postoma says that education is necessary to enlighten every individual that there is an intergenerational responsibility that every individual should cultivate. Intergenerational responsibility. This is a term which Postoma uses when he talks about that why we should care for the environment. We should care for the environment if you recollect. We should care for the environment because we are human beings, because we are citizen. So, it is in that context every citizen must cultivate the sense of responsibility, which is intergenerational responsibility. We are responsible for our fellow beings because they are also in trouble. It is not that. People who are yet to come as I said that the future society is yet to come and we have to offer them a good world, a good environment so that they cherish life much better than what is been given to us or what we experience in our everyday life. So, therefore we need to talk about a intergenerational responsibility, not only just a responsibility as a kind of a bare concept. Now, when we talk about animals and animal rights, let us see that how we behave with them. What kind of attitudes are being expressed by the humans to animals. Now, we inflict pain on animals, we torture them, we kill them. Animals are also raised, they are being raised for foods. We used in our research, test a medicine for example, when we test a research product, we now use them. We have been using them or inflicting pain on them when we are engaged in hunting, when we are engaged in fishing. They become a means to our pleasure and many times you might have noticed in the countryside that there are a lot of sports and entertainment programs used as animals extensively. So, therefore we need to really think upon such issues that how and what kind of mode of engagement that we have with animals, what kind of relationship that we share with animals. Now, today we live in a society where there is mass production and mass consumption and that is what is the message of globalization that you not only produce more but also consume more. Now, this attitude, the consumption process has been so haphazard that there are a lot of prices which is there particularly the health related prices is due to the kind of a mass consumption of which are people are talking about. Maggie has been in the news for almost one week or so that how massively certain things are been consumed and what we never bother about, what will be their health impact when we consume things because we are not an enlightened society. We have not developed things in a much sophisticated way to test what is good for us, what is good for the health of our children or health of what kind of health benefits a particular food item has. So, it is very recently people have started thinking more on this in India particularly but in many developed nations they have proper institutional mechanisms to test to notify to instruct the users that this is what an item contains so that you inform the consumer prior to their consumption and if the consumer is enlightened one if the consumer has the ability to purchase things then they will be consuming better things. So, here what I am interested to share with you is this that many times our engagement with animals and animal products have been such that we do not really care for our health when we consume them. So, there is an health impact which has to be also taken into account and when you talk about biodiversity and the balance in ecosystems we need to see that how such a diversity can be maintained how the balance could be maintained so that we leave a quality life. Yesterday initiating my debates on environmental ethics I was talking about the meaningful life and meaningful life and quality life are not different rather what we have meant quality life is a very comfortable happy life. We live in a society where many individuals only considers their happiness is now the first priority of course it is the first priority say for example being a parent I have the first priority that now my children should be happy it is not it even if I have to work hard but they should be happy. Now similarly when if that is our concern can that concern be a little extended to include other people into that particular sphere of happiness so that they leave a quality life. So, the RG Harry is basically to develop an ethical concern towards other and not being individualistic in our approach so that is what is the impact. Now, let us look at that how classically animals have been treated. Since the kind of modern rationality has been borrowed to India we need to see how it has been practiced many of you have pointed out yesterday that this is not been exclusively an academic program in Indian universities why environmental ethics is not taught in the school level. Now at the school level we do not find it because we have not thought about it and we have not prepared a curriculum which will help our children to develop an ethical attitude towards the other. So, therefore the time has come that we need to prepare ourselves think ourselves in those lines. Now, but if you look at the societies which have been enlightened societies and people in that enlightened societies have been talking about animal rights and they are talking in more academic terms as well as in active terms. So, here I would be discussing some of the philosophers who advocate and try to maintain in their theoretical approach that how animal rights could be treasured. If you go back to the history then you as I pointed out earlier that we still live in a culture of anthropocentrism we have not given up we have accepted the values of anthropocentrism and we have accepted it so deeply that it is difficult to give up that attitude but it is not impossible. So, the point is in an anthropocentric world humans are always treated as superior to other animals and this is what the Judeo-Christianic tradition has talked talks about but within that western philosophical tradition you find there is a conflict in the Greek philosophy itself there are alternative voices which has been raised. Now, in Greek philosophy when you treat human as a very respectable entity then you respect them because they are rational beings they are linguistic beings and humans have a very unique functions being linguistic being rational because it is the human being who are capable of building institutions animals and non-humans do live a societal life have some rudimentary form of societal life but they do not build institutions they do not their intentionality or their intentional attitudes are very very limiting attitudes limiting to their own community but when it comes to the human society humanity has expressed some kind of a unique linguistic functions where certain values are preserved and they are preserved by developing unique institutions. Institutions are grounded on certain norms or rules or principles and these principles are sufficient enough to regulate human conduct. So, most of us are behaving better because we have institutions today you have institutions today to regulate our conducts and that is and that is something very unique about human life and that has been made possible because we are not only rational beings but also linguistic beings. Now, this is a passage which I was referring to yesterday and please have a look to this passage that how an anthropocentric view is derived from the classical thinking religious belief but there are certainly a kind of a modified verse these religions have tried to modernize them try to they have lived up to a level where they have tried to see that yes whatever wrong has been done has done now let us do modify our approach. So, there has been some kind of a revision in that but if you look at if you try to trace where it has come from then possibly this is where it has come from in the western tradition. So, therefore what kind of possibilities that we are looking for the possibility is that we are using animals for food we are using animals for agriculture, transports etc. etc. Now, can we minimize can we have technology which will help us in performing better in agriculture in technology in transport and can we have alternative food items if we advocate say for example if you advocate vegetarianism can we have an alternative to that that is to be really something that we need to think upon that issue. Now, I also talked about a kind of a possibility where I mentioned about moral extensionism that is a concept where that how this is possible how animal rights is possible this is not a very distant dream people who are advocating animal rights see it is a kind of a possibility because we have the humanity has experienced a society where there was slavery and today people condemn slavery humanity has experienced some kind of a sexism what we called where there is a inequality between the two sex say male female inequality humanity has also experienced this gender inequality for a long but today we live in a societies where women are also equally respected these are the success which humanity has experienced racism we do condemn racism we do condemn colonial attitudes. So, therefore looking at this success story of the slavery sexism racism and colonialism we find in future if we change our attitude then maybe now we will succeed much larger sense to propagate this and maintain animal rights and that will help us equally to preserve on it. Now, if you are talking about human animal relationship then human see the animals as fit to use and so there is no direct duties to animals. So, most of our relationship is an indirect relationship I think that is something need to be revised because most of us look at when we are using slaves slaves were used as a kind of a property people used to buy slaves and use them as a property. So, in a very inhuman ways one human was used as a property similarly before the feminist movement you look at some societies where women were treated as a property. So, right to property is something was very direct but when we talk about animal we still use animals as our properties and therefore we have every right to mistreat them or ill treat them they have they become victim of our action our voluntary actions. So, therefore we need to revise this sense of belongingness revise this notion of property and property rights so that as I was talking about of biotic equality is maintained the duty of humans is that what we owe to each other do we owe anything as the owner of the property that is I think very important and the other one is when we treat the animals do we really like that treatment are we expressing some form of on a cruelty and that has to be discouraged condemned things like that. So, our mode of engagement has to be changed then only this concept duty will be meaningful to us if at all we have duty to other. So, for example, people who condemn child labour they think they feel that every child has a right to live right to grow as an independent individual in the society. Similarly, when we express our feelings and you know actions to the animals we also have a similar kind of feeling or we need to cultivate this refined feeling that we have a duty to preserve this extinct any species so that they helps us indirectly and directly to develop ourselves as better human beings or develop ourselves as a better society. So, we should discourage quality towards animal that is the method we will have a better sense of duty towards them. As I told you that within western tradition there are critiques there are philosophers who have been raising voice against the quality to animal. Pythagoras one of the Greek classical Greek philosopher during the time of Socrates and Plato Pythagoras talks about vegetarianism. He believes that that every animal or every non-human beings living beings were just a soul and they undergo some kind of an incarnation. This kind of understanding was revealing in the classical history of western philosophy western philosophical tradition and similarly people who have heard of Jean Rousseau Jean Jacques Rousseau and Jeremy Bentham Bentham who himself was a utilitarian but advocated animals that having the capacity to reason out things capacity to judge things. So, animals are incapable of reason which was in a totalian attitude was little very critically looked at by two important philosophers one is Jean Jacques Rousseau Rousseau and another is Jeremy Bentham. They are sentient beings and therefore they suffer like we suffer we feel pain and similarly animals do feel pain. So, therefore we should not inflict pain on animals like we do not allow somebody else inflicting pain on us we discourage it because we suffer. What we aspire to have what we desire rather is happiness. Similarly, if we compare that or thing in this line that animals who are sentient beings they do suffer and we should not inflict pain that could be an approach which Bentham brings to us. Then Darwin Charles Darwin himself also advocated that the animals are capable of emotions and feelings. They are not only having ability to judge things. So, for example in many times if you have looked at into discovery channels or some animal planets now the animals are paid specifically this sense the natural calamities much faster than the human sensibility. So, their sense is quite subtle and the sensitivity the power of sensitivity is so strong that this sense is much faster than much ahead of us than we sense. So, they give a kind of an alarming sound or they express a gesture that helps the humanity to great extent. So, that is what you know needs to be looked at when we talk about animal ethics that why we should respect animals why we should not inflict pain why we should not kill animals unnecessarily that now those considerations can be taken into account. Now, then Henry Salt you people who have read Gandhi's my experiment a story of my experiment with truth will know that how Gandhi himself formed a vegetarian club and Salt was one of his you know a favorite person who with whom he interacted. So, the whole idea is that vegetarianism and that is what the false writings helped Gandhi to change his attitude vegetarianism is also good for health it is not that those who are vegetarian are weak. Now, Gandhi had this kind of understanding in the beginning particularly in his childhood he believed that those who eat non vegetarian food are only strong and those who eat vegetarian food they are weak. So, when he encountered Salt and later on formed a vegetarian club or was part of the vegetarian club initiative is something one can looked at. So, Salt argues that argues against the vivisection of animals any living animals and he strongly argues in favor of vegetarianism and so also Bernatso and Peter Singer. Now, Peter Singer's argument in favor of the treatment of animals and vegetarianism is something very significant today Peter Singer is one of the living philosopher in 21st century who has written a book on animal liberation. Singer argues that argues a concept called preference utilitarianism. Preference utilitarianism is something different from what we understand utilitarianism. Let us understand what is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a concept as an ethical concept I have discussed little bit on that when I was talking of the types of ethics, deontological ethics, religious ethics and the consequentialism. The consequentialists are utilitarian. Utilitarians argue that all forms of utilitarianism define the right action as whatever will produce the best outcome for all affected differ about the good. The idea here is that whatever is good for us whatever has got maximum utility for the consumer that has to be used for the well-being of maximum number of people. So, maximum happiness for maximum number of people is the slogan. So, if x is an item and x has got some utility now the consumer has to see how many people will be affected, how many people really will enjoy the utility of the particular item called x. Now, if x would satisfy the maximum number of people then utilitarianism will accept x as a kind of a valued item. So, it is in that form all forms of utilitarianism needs to look at or maximum amount of happiness that a consumer gathers from the utility of a particular good is something that has to be kept in mind when we try to understand Peter Singer preference utilitarianism. Preference utilitarianism argues that whatever maximizes the satisfaction of the preferences involved which may not necessarily be their own happiness. If something is not on the contrary to the utilitarian thesis per se preference utilitarianism argues that it may not be necessarily be their own happiness. It may not be necessarily you know bringing happiness to me but if some preference is to be given for the benefit of or for the well being of some other community then we should try to maximize that and we should try to include that within our ethical standard. So, that interest of that community or the well being of that community is been protected. So, that is what and the preference utilitarianism precisely argued as I told you about the feminist movement the gender inequality which was prevailing in our society. Now, this has been argued looking at their success stories of slavery and gender inequalities acceptance of women, ethnic minorities are equal to those of males because something is good for us. If we live in a equal society if I treat my mother, my wife, my daughters in a family they are equal to me and give up my patriarchal attitude then that is always good for a family. So, here the attitude is that whatever is maximizing the satisfaction of mine preference will be given to that. So, gender equality will be maintained precisely because that will bring good to the family that will bring good to the society that will bring good to all kinds of institutions where women play a very important role women's are decision makers. So, that will help the society to grow in much larger and better way. Now, when it comes to entertainment how and gratification of pleasure you may come across that there are still some corner of India you have people believe in religious sacrifices where cocks sometimes a buffalo sometimes a goat is been sacrificed I think we need to change that attitude we need to modernize ourselves we need to think that the animals also have life and they should not sacrifice their life for our well-being and there was preference utilitarianism also has you know reflects upon this idea that recently when there was a there is a bane on beef in Bombay people have started thinking whether Dharavi's leather market will be affected by such bane on beef. Now, preference utilitarianism argues that if we stop collectively individually or from an individual point of view if certain actions are being performed it may not have impact on market. So, but a collective performance a collective action will definitely have some impact on the market because suppose I become you know I am a consumer of non-vegetarian food and all in a sudden I change myself that yes I would like to have vegetarian food now onwards and this attitude of mine may not have a greater impact in the market. But if it becomes a collective demand if vegetarianism becomes a collective demand then gradually it will have impact on the market. So, therefore it is important that we should cease to treat animals in ways that cause them suffer to you and to use them for food is to inflict suffering on the animals. So, the medical research using animals offer potential benefits to humans though the pay of rate is low much research is into conditions that suffer being upon themselves by choosing unhealthy and high risk lifetime. You will be surprised that many times the drugs are being tested not only on animals but also on human beings. In the third world countries the poverty rate is so high people test drugs on them. So, we actually Peter Singer's concern is that when we look at the animal life and when we look at the human life human life ridden with property malnutrition and being also the victim of this type I think such a unhealthy practice it is morally unhealthy practice and involves a high risk in our lifestyles and that has to be stopped. We need to stop it for our well-being for our good. Thank you.