However, as Bentham realized, most human beings are capable of diﬀerent sorts of pleasure and pain from other animals. If we focus on the experience of pain, through language we are able to communicate and anticipate likely outcomes of actions in diﬀerent ways from other animals. This means that a human being who is, for example, in a prison cell awaiting torture, would probably experience more intense psychological suﬀering than an animal in a similar posi-tion because the human would be able to anticipate the pain. This would make the overall quantity of pain higher in the case of a human being in this situation than it would an animal similarly placed. This does not mean that animal suﬀering doesn’t count, only that the suﬀering may have a diﬀerent intensity, duration, and eﬀects on others – all consequences that need to be given weight in a calculation of the pleasure or pain that results from a course of action.
[Nigel Warburton, Philosophy: The basics]
I've two questions to ask.
In the context above, does "the suffering" refer to "animal suffering"? or it's just the suffering in general?
What does the word "others" refer to? I am so confused about this word.