Introduction to Animal Welfare Ethics | Lecture notes Animal husbandry

BASC103A

Animal Welfare Finals Reviewer

Introduction to Animal Welfare Ethics

●When we think about ethics in everyday life, we start by considering that many of the decisions we make all the

time have moral dimensions

●Have components which extend beyond self interest and involve concern for others; our actions may make others

worse off (they may be harmed or deprived)

●Actions which are right and wrong – moral values

●Often the ethical part of everyday decisions remains hidden because it is a part of a routine or forms part of widely

accepted practice. However, when we examine our decisions and the moral values behind them, we find that our

values are influenced by societal norms, professional ethics, personal ethics, and ethical theory

Societal norms (social ethic)

●Rules that have enable us to live together

●May evolve and change as new factual info is gained or collective preferences develop in line with increasing or

decreasing prosperity

●Ex. animals need protection and consideration because they are sentient (stunning/slaughter is permissible for

halal meat, forced molting is illegal in several countries, etc.)

●Perceived informal mostly unwritten rules that define acceptable and appropriate actions within a group or

community thus guiding human behavior

●Consist of what we do, what we believe others do and what we believe

●Provide order in society

●Humans need norms to guide and direct their behavior, to provide order and predictability in social relationships

●To make sense and understanding of each other’s actions

●Can be both informal understandings that govern the behavior of members of society as well as be codified into

rules and law

●4 types

○Folkways, mores, taboos, law

○Vary across time, cultures, places, and even sub-groups

○Mores – customs and behavior that are typically found in the place or group

○Folkways – traditional behavior or way of life of a particular community

○Taboo – social and religious customs prohibiting or forbidding discussion of a particular practice or

forbidding association with a particular person, place, or thing

Personal ethics

●Affect our views of what is right and wrong

●Develop from personal experiences

●Personal ethics may lead you to vote for a change

●Ethics that a person identifies with in respect to people and situation that they deal with in everyday life

Professional ethics

●Ethics that a person must adhere to in respect of their interactions and business dealings in their professional life

Ethical theory

●Moral values may be informed by ethical theory – ethics in academic sense

Ethics

●Branch of philosophy concerned with the study of logic behind our moral values – the reasons why we ought to

relate to others in certain ways

●Animal ethics – study of how we ought to relate to animals

●Value of ethics – skeptical

○Complexity of moral values and given the variety of ethical theory

○Ethics is just subjective, just preferences

Moral values

●Guidelines that assist a person in deciding between right and wrong

●In order to create honest, credible and fair judgements and relationships in daily life, the awareness of one’s

morals along with self awareness is crucial (e.g. compassion, respect)

Moral values and ethical theories are not agreement on objective reasons why certain actions are right and others wrong.

Ethical consensus

Partial preview of the text

Download Introduction to Animal Welfare Ethics and more Lecture notes Animal husbandry in PDF only on Docsity!

Animal Welfare Finals Reviewer Introduction to Animal Welfare Ethics ● When we think about ethics in everyday life, we start by considering that many of the decisions we make all the time have moral dimensions ● Have components which extend beyond self interest and involve concern for others; our actions may make others worse off (they may be harmed or deprived) ● Actions which are right and wrong – moral values ● Often the ethical part of everyday decisions remains hidden because it is a part of a routine or forms part of widely accepted practice. However, when we examine our decisions and the moral values behind them, we find that our values are influenced by societal norms, professional ethics, personal ethics, and ethical theory Societal norms (social ethic) ● Rules that have enable us to live together ● May evolve and change as new factual info is gained or collective preferences develop in line with increasing or decreasing prosperity ● Ex. animals need protection and consideration because they are sentient (stunning/slaughter is permissible for halal meat, forced molting is illegal in several countries, etc.) ● Perceived informal mostly unwritten rules that define acceptable and appropriate actions within a group or community thus guiding human behavior ● Consist of what we do, what we believe others do and what we believe ● Provide order in society ● Humans need norms to guide and direct their behavior, to provide order and predictability in social relationships ● To make sense and understanding of each other’s actions ● Can be both informal understandings that govern the behavior of members of society as well as be codified into rules and law ● 4 types ○ Folkways, mores, taboos, law ○ Vary across time, cultures, places, and even sub-groups ○ Mores – customs and behavior that are typically found in the place or group ○ Folkways – traditional behavior or way of life of a particular community ○ Taboo – social and religious customs prohibiting or forbidding discussion of a particular practice or forbidding association with a particular person, place, or thing Personal ethics ● Affect our views of what is right and wrong ● Develop from personal experiences ● Personal ethics may lead you to vote for a change ● Ethics that a person identifies with in respect to people and situation that they deal with in everyday life Professional ethics ● Ethics that a person must adhere to in respect of their interactions and business dealings in their professional life Ethical theory ● Moral values may be informed by ethical theory – ethics in academic sense Ethics ● Branch of philosophy concerned with the study of logic behind our moral values – the reasons why we ought to relate to others in certain ways ● Animal ethics – study of how we ought to relate to animals ● Value of ethics – skeptical ○ Complexity of moral values and given the variety of ethical theory ○ Ethics is just subjective, just preferences Moral values ● Guidelines that assist a person in deciding between right and wrong ● In order to create honest, credible and fair judgements and relationships in daily life, the awareness of one’s morals along with self awareness is crucial (e.g. compassion, respect) Moral values and ethical theories are not agreement on objective reasons why certain actions are right and others wrong. Ethical consensus

Animal Welfare Finals Reviewer ● Enable us to live harmoniously and thrive ● If ethics was simply subjective, it would likely result in societal breakdowns. ● Principle of the “golden rule” – do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself ○ Found in most religion, societies ○ Component of some ethical theories Rigorous logic of ethical frameworks also make ethics more than just subjective. Personal Ethics vs Personal Preferences ● Preference – “i like peas” ○ Little rational defense; does not attempt to make other people like peas; does not matter if anybody else shares this preference ● Ethics – “we ought to avoid eating animals and get our dietary protein from peas instead” ○ Statement of moral values and attempts to tell others what to do ○ Requires rational justification Moral Values vs Preference Values ● Difference is more subtle ● Our moral value about avoiding eating animals and eating peas instead is different from a preference value such as ‘It is better to get our dietary protein from peas than from animals’. ● Preference values ○ comparative and they include a positive or negative value such as better or worse, or more important vs. less important. (Note that this is different from a simple comparative statement of fact such as ‘peas are smaller than sheep’.) ● Neither statements of our preferences for peas, nor statements of our preference values about eating peas, nor statements of fact about the comparative size of peas requires anyone to change his/her behavior, but they might influence our own behavior and choices. ● However, our moral values about eating peas instead of animals may compete with other preference values we have that are concerned with, for example, our income, our social standing, existing laws, etc. So if those preferences are stronger than our preference for peas instead of meat, then this may lead to actions that are inconsistent with our moral values Why ethics are not just preferences ● How people ought to act require some justification; speaker prefers are not an adequate justification ● Need a more impartial and logical standpoint so reasons can be recognized and weighed up ● Ethical theory gives us a set of reasons that lead us to a conclusion Reason why animals do not have moral status ● unlike us, they lack sufficient consciousness to reflect on their experience ● In some views, animals could not have moral status because they lack a soul. ● Philosophers who argued from this general perspective have included Kant and Descartes. For example, Descartes denied that animals could suffer, but Kant did not deny that animals could suffer, but argued that their suffering did not matter because they are not rational. ● The extension of their views was that, because animals lack language, consciousness and the power of reflection, they cannot take part in mutual arrangements and they cannot reciprocate any moral consideration that is given to them. ● These arguments are purely intellectual and they do not match what we see in animals and what we know of their behavior. Therefore, they do not seem to be common sense. Religion and Ethics ● several world religions provide explicit guidance on the importance of how we should act towards animals ● Buddhism and Hinduism apply the concept of ahimsa which means not harming any living creature. ○ Practicing ahimsa helps to ensure personal purity and avoid suffering in a future incarnation. This is a consequentialist argument, where how we should act is guided by the potential consequences of our actions. ● Judaism and Islam both have very clear guidelines about the treatment of animals and the avoidance of, for example, pig meat. ● Such practices are seen as necessary for personal health and spiritual purity, and some of them are followed because animals are God’s creation and, as such, require respect and kindness so that they do not suffer from ill-treatment. This guidance is a combination of a consequentialist position that is humans-centered (maintaining

Animal Welfare Finals Reviewer The existence of inherent qualities mean that we owe animals treatment that respects these attributes. That is, we have duties to them and unlike the logic of utilitarianism, we should not cause animals to suffer for the purpose of benefiting others. Deontology and Ethics ● make decisions about how we treat animals based on duty – as against consequences – is termed ‘deontological’ ○ from the Greek deontos, meaning obligation. ● hold that there are some actions that are right in themselves whatever the future consequences. These are obligations. ● Therefore, human rights theory states that we should treat other humans as ends rather than means: we should not use our fellow humans in ways which do not respect their inherent worth, even if good consequences result. For example, we should not throw one person out of a lifeboat, even if that might stop the boat from sinking and save everyone else in it. It follows that if our intrinsic worth gives us rights, and we agree that animals have intrinsic worth, then animals must have rights too. We have seen why ethics is not just subjective or preferences ● a system of reasoning that helps us to know how we should act towards others ● have centered on whether or not animals have certain attributes: language, the capacity to suffer, and intrinsic value. ● As we have looked at those arguments, we have also come upon the concepts of consequentialist versus deontological positions, and the concepts of extrinsic and intrinsic value. 5 Ethical Theories About Animals

Contractarian Theory ● Operate as a moral community based on self interest ● Can talk and agree, enter into contracts with others ● Break a contract, he/she may retaliate, therefore we are motivated to treat them well and vice versa ● animals cannot talk, they cannot enter into contracts with us nor us with them. Therefore we do not have moral obligations to them. We must treat them well only insofar as it benefits ourselves or other people with whom we do have contracts ● it is anthropocentric – it only considers the needs of humans ● animals cannot enter into reciprocal arrangements with us
Utilitarianism ● consequences of actions ● obliged to maximize ‘utility’, meaning happiness or the balance of pleasure over pain ● aim to act in order to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number. ● Jeremy Bentham believed that beings who can suffer should be included in this theory. Utilitarianism seems simple and flexible. However, it can be confusing when it demands we break certain moral rules in order to bring about the best consequence. ○ For example, people in an overloaded lifeboat may calculate that more people will survive if they prevent more people climbing aboard, even if those refused help will drown. However, it would normally be a strong moral imperative to help others in mortal danger. ● considers the value of consequences beyond simply pleasure and pain ○ We should maximize the satisfaction of preferences. If animals have preferences, then they should be included in our calculations. ● The most famous current exponent of this view in regard to animals is Peter Singer. His thinking has formed the basis for the notion of animal liberation. Broadly, his arguments are: ○ animals are sentient and can have preferences, but that does not include sufficient awareness to have a desire to keep on living ○ it is therefore acceptable to kill animals for food if the following conditions apply: ○ they have had a good life (one in which they could satisfy their preferences) ○ they are replaced by other animals who would not otherwise have been brought into the world and given the chance to enjoy a good life, and ○ the animals can die painlessly and without suffering. ● Based on this view, Singer argues that because modern farming does not allow animals to have a good life, we should not eat animal products. ● animals are sentient and their suffering or pleasure is of concern ● takes a universal, impartial approach where we all share in the responsibility to ensure the animals have a good life, a humane death and are replaced. ● to protect animals from suffering; recall that this is a consequentialist theory

Animal Welfare Finals Reviewer ‘Equal consideration of equal interests’

allows different treatment of different animals, but asks that we give equal weight to their morally relevant similar interests. So, if it hurts a goat as much as it hurts a human to be hit, we ought to avoid causing this sort of pain in both goats and humans.
Under this principle, unequal treatment of animals and humans is justified only if there are morally relevant differences between humans and that animal. For example, the freedom to practice religion is very important to some humans, but providing this freedom to farm animals is not necessary.
It is unjust to treat animals differently from ourselves simply because they have different biological characteristics. Again, if they are capable of similar experiences to us, this must be respected when we make decisions about how to treat them. Many people would agree that it is permissible to raise farm animals and then kill them while they are young and healthy so that we can eat them.
However, many people disagree with Singer that farming cannot provide animals with a good life. We have seen earlier that, for some people, an animal’s good physical functioning is enough for them to say that the animal has a good life, while for others an animal’s mental state or natural behavior are important. In reality, welfare comprises all three elements and balancing them is certainly a challenge. However, many people would disagree with Singer and would say that farming can give animals a good life before we kill them

Rights Theory ● deontological – decisions are based on obligations rather than consequences. Rights philosophy was emphasized by Kant, whom we encountered earlier, although he excluded animals on the grounds that they are not rational. ● ‘Moral rights’ are very strong claims that cannot be overridden merely to produce beneficial consequences, and rights flow from the very basic interests of those that hold them. ● The theory of animal rights was developed by American philosopher Tom Regan. He argues that mammals and birds are “subjects of a life”. That is, they are more than just alive and conscious – they have beliefs, desires, memory, emotional life and various other mental capacities. All this gives them an inherent worth, from which flows their rights. The most fundamental right is their right to have their inherent worth respected. ● Arguments against animal rights include the following. ○ You cannot always respect everyone’s rights, even with humans. Regan does not discuss particular cases but, as with all ethical theories, it is impossible to apply animal rights consistently, all the time. ○ For example, Regan allows killing animals for self-defense (which is a human interest) but not for laboratory research on life-saving medication (another human interest). It is inconsistent to be permitted to kill animals to save one’s life in one context but not in another. ○ Other arguments against the assumption of animal rights are that they ignore the unique inherent value that humans have as moral agents, and that as moral agents we must enact the responsibilities that come with having rights. Animals cannot enact responsibilities, so they cannot respect other animals’ rights. Therefore the concept of rights for animals is faulty. ● Animal rights theory continues to be debated. For example, more recent animal rights philosophers and legal scholars such as Daniel DeGrazia, Steve Sapontzis and Gary Francione have argued against the notion that humans’ moral agency should be an obstacle to rights. Another scholar is the Christian theologian Andrew Linzey who has argued that animals have rights given to them by God as their creator. ● animals’ lives do matter to them ● does not allow the raising and killing of animals for our purposes. ● to allow animals to live as far as possible according to their nature; that is our obligation in respect of animals having species-specific characteristics. Recall that this makes it a deontological theory
Relational Theory ● extended from care ethics, which is rooted specifically in the human–animal bond and also involves the notion of virtuous behavior ● ‘care ethics’ ○ developed largely by feminist philosophers such as Mary Midgley, Nel Noddings and Carol Adams in the second part of the twentieth century, and continues to be refined ○ argued that rights were too legalistic an approach to animals, especially within a system which was quite patriarchal. Instead, our actions towards animals should be guided by our natural tendency to build relationships with animals and show compassion, which in turns gives us a duty of care to them, as they are dependent on us ● Related to that desire to show compassion is the much older idea of ‘virtue ethics’ first promulgated by Aristotle. Here a good life consists of living according to one’s nature, and our nature is to be happy, which we can achieve in part by doing good in relation to others

Animal Welfare Finals Reviewer ● Law or set of laws suggested by a government and made official by a parliament ● “The question is not, can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being? – Jeremy Bentham ● Reflects ethical concerns and usually based on science

Introduction to Animal Welfare Ethics, Lecture notes of Animal husbandry

Related documents

Partial preview of the text

Download Introduction to Animal Welfare Ethics and more Lecture notes Animal husbandry in PDF only on Docsity!