The industrial civilization opened up a new situation in which man conquered nature according to his own will. The idea of an inexhaustible supply of animal resources was inherent in human mentality. But species endangerment, mutation and other environmental problems followed. People began to reflect on their place in nature and the value of other species. However, whether animals and humans enjoy equal moral rights and how to judge whether a species is worthy of moral consideration are highly controversial. Some people insist that humans do not have an immediate moral obligation to nature, and if there is one, it should be seen as merely an indirect expression of a human obligation. Also, since animals are far behind humans in terms of intelligence, therefore animals do not deserve equal moral considerations as humans. However, I believe that this idea is problematic. Each species has its own value of existence, and instead of intelligence, sentience is a better measure of whether a species gets equal moral consideration. From the utilitarian point of view, the foundation of morality is one’s interest. The ability to feel pain and pleasure is the basis for judging whether sentient beings have interests. Since animals have the same sense of pleasure and pain, they must have the same need for interests as humans. On this basis, then, it makes sense to have the same moral considerations for animals.