I will argue that utilitarianism is a reasonable ethical theory to demonstrate that we have a duty to accord equal moral consideration to sentient beings, in this case non-human animals. I will illustrate, from the perspective of utilitarian criteria, that non-human animals are indeed sentient and that this is sufficient to count for moral status. I will defend my argument with examples of practices commonly used to treat animals as a resource, for example for food and in laboratory experiments. This will prove that any action that does not treat animals as beings with moral standing violates an animal's right and is therefore morally unacceptable. I will begin by showing why utilitarian theory justifies my claim by providing a strong argument in favor of non-human animals. The theory says that an action is morally right if it brings the most benefit to all concerned than any alternative action, in other words: "the greatest happiness of the greatest number." Regarding my argument in favor of nonhuman animals, I should summarize all the interests of all groups affected (humans and nonhuman animals) by my actions and choose the one that provides the greatest net satisfaction. Utilitarianism is used in my argument because it has good ethical properties. It is said to be universal, in that it meets the interests of all those involved, regardless of any trait or characteristic. Everyone should adopt this rule. This theory also addresses what is morally good in terms of well-being, or rather our satisfaction or dissatisfaction, such as the interest in a happy and enjoyable life. This theory is best known for being consequentialist, because it tells us that the right action is the one that maximizes utility or produces the best consequences. And finally, utilitar...... middle of paper ......ore, does not add greater utility. To ignore the suffering of non-human animals is to ignore the fact that they have moral consideration. Other moral theories, such as Kantianism, believe that we do not have duties towards non-human animals, but that we do have duties towards them, because being cruel would reflect on us. I have reason to believe that we have an obligation to them, because we are not only disrespecting each other; we are harming these non-human animals. There is an independent wrong that is committed when, for example, a severely brain-damaged child is whipped or sets a cat on fire. When you feel sorry for a suffering animal, it's because you have reason to change its conditions. Their cries are no less heard than the words of a human. Another animal can oblige you in exactly the same way as another person. It's not a question of whether they can reason or speak, but whether they can suffer.?