At very least, I conclude that we have no general reason to think that non-human animals feel pain less acutely than we do, and we should in any case give them the benefit of the doubt. Practices such as branding cattle, castration without anaesthetic, and bullfighting should be treated as morally equivalent to doing the same thing to human beings.

What - on the grounds that morality is all about universally reducing suffering? That seems to be a pretty daft premise to me.

A demographic examination of those involved suggests that animal rights campaigning appears to be largely to do with the signalling function of morality. Those who promote these ideas are the ones who want to signal what goody-two-shoes they are. It is a case of: see how much I care, I even care for whales.