Friday 3rd August - Animal Ethics

Question 1

Animal Ethics

The study of how we should interact with animals:

When they are our companions

When they are in the wild

When they are used as resources

Farms

Zoos

Laboratories

Can we justify using animals in these contexts at all? If we can, how ought we to treat them?

Question 2

Is it ok to keep an animal as a pet?

When we keep animals as pets, we enforce their dependence on us, and that seems wrong!

Some pets suffer!

But, some pets are loved and respected.

A life as a pet is better than many of the alternatives (including the most likely alternatives!)

Question 3

THE GREEEAATER GOOD

The ethics of zoos depends a lot on their practice…

Does the zoo environment mimic the natural environment of the animal, or is it shit house like Thailand?

Are they well treated?

Are they safer/healthier in the zoo than in the wild?

(some on the brinc of extinction, no habitat or breeding ground)

Is the zoo participating in a broader program to help the species?

Is it ok for an individual to suffer crappy conditions for the longevity of the species.

Question 4

Exceptionalism (Point at end): Humans are seen as special. We have only derivative duties to animals.

Abolitionism (Point at end): Non-human animals are moral beings, and cannot be justifiably used by us.

Welfarism (Scalar): We have some duties to animals, but these don’t prevent us from (sometimes) legitimately using animals.

Answer 4

Question 5

Exceptionalists claim that there is something about us (humans), which:

a) All humans have,

&

b) All non-human animals lack

This [something] is the reason we have moral obligations, and so, we owe moral duties to all humans, but not to non-humans.

Of course, pointing to this is hard…

Question 6

‘Anything humans have, animals have as well’

The claim that non-human animals have a moral status that is incompatible with the use of animals as the resources of human beings:

Food

Clothing

Entertainment

Test subjects

As such, our use of animals must be abolished.

Question 7

In short, Welfarism is what is left between the two extremes of Exceptionalism & Abolitionism.

There is a lot of variation amongst welfarists.

Some are vegan or vegetarian, but this isn’t required of a welfarist.

Welfarists disagree about what suffering is unnecessary.

Question 8

AN ARGUMENT FOR ABOLITIONISM (OR WELFARISM)

1. Animals can experience pain.
2. Pain is bad.
3. It is wrong to impose something bad on any being without a good reason for doing so.
4. Therefore it is wrong to cause pain to animals without a good reason.

 This argument could be used to support an abolitionist position, if one claimed that there is *no good reason* to cause pain to animals.

 Or to support a welfarist account, if one thought there were some good reasons.

 How many good reasons you think there are, would determine how much your welfarist account restricts what we can do with/to animals.

Question 9

ANIMAL PRODUCTS ARE EVERYWHERE!

1. Non vegan tattoos
2. Bank notes (UK, AUS, CANADA, MEXICO)
3. WINE (ISINGLASS) Filtering agent / fish bladder
4. Animal fat in crayons
5. Plastic Bags

If its never ok to used animals there is probably something you are unknowingly using from them. We really rely on animals which is why this is important.

Question 10

If abolitionists (and the stricter welfarists) are right, then many of our current practices are deeply immoral.

3rd world countries do not have cranes and diggers, must harness and tame elephants for building, unfair to have an abolitionism outlook in this circumstance

 Riding horses (whether for work or pleasure)

 Having pets

 Working elephants.

 Eating meat…

 Laboratory testing

Question 11

DO THE RIGHT THING

In general, we should want to do the right thing (people don’t agree on what the right thing is). And most of us do have a moral impulse… we want to do the right thing. But we disagree about what that is, in the case of animals.

Animal ethics matters insofar as we are arguing about what it is ok to do with and to animals. If we can come to an agreement on the theory, we can generate standards for our practice of engaging with animals, which will guide our behaviour

Question 12

WHY WOULD WE WANT TO TEST THINGS ON ANIMALS?

Bias Alert: The image to the right is from Novartis, a Swiss Healthcare company. They are not impartial in this debate!

 However, it does present the basics of an argument in favour of continued animal testing.

 Roughly: The benefits (to humans and non-human animals) of continuing to use animals in lab settings, outweigh the costs (harms to the animals used). So, we should use them

Question 13

THE BENEFIT ARGUMENT

(utilitarian arguement)

This benefit argument probably provides the best case in favour of the ongoing use of animals.

 It is, at heart, a utilitarian argument.

 For utilitarians, the right thing to do is that which maximises [what is of fundamental value]. In this particular argument, the thing that is of fundamental value is something like wellbeing.

If animal testing, considered overall, enhances the wellbeing in the world, we should do it. Further, we should do whatever amount of it, in whatever way, maximises overall wellbeing.

Answer 13

We have duties to humans and duties as humans

Question 14

YES?

 Coronary bypass surgery – developed through research with dogs.

 Diabetes – Insulin discovered through dog research. (Helps animals too! Dogs & cats also suffer from diabetes)

 Dementia research – new therapies developed from research with mice and primates

 Cancer

Answer 14

NO?

 Some animal testing leads us in the wrong direction – hard to translate from other animals to us.

 Is animal testing the most cost-effective way to achieve these results?

 Were the animals treated well in the process?

 How many animals died?

Question 15

 Some cases are easy: The argument for cosmetic testing on animals seems to clearly fail the benefit test.

 But research on cancer prevention or heart disease could pass the test, and thereby seem justified due to the benefits gained from it.

 How would an abolitionist respond?

Question 16

ABOLITIONISM VS THE BENEFITS ARGUMENT

Abolitionists cannot consistently accept the benefits argument.

Their position rejects utilitarian arguments in favour of a rights based approach to animal wellbeing.

 Rights based approaches, for animals just like for humans, rely on the claim that there are some things you just cannot do to some one, in virtue of who they are.

 So, just like humans have rights not to be tortured, or subjected to cruel or unusual punishment, the abolitionist will claim that animals have the right not to be tortured or subjected to cruel or unusual punishment.

(And, that animal testing constitutes one or more of these).

Question 17

BITING THE ABOLITIONIST BULLET

 Note that this generates problems for the abolitionist position:

 It is plausible that minor harms to animals could generate massive benefits to humans (kill 1 mouse, save 1 million people). The abolitionist has to say that these benefits don’t matter.

 (This is a problem for rights in general: If you could save a million lives by torturing 1 human, would it be forbidden, allowed, or required that you torture that person?)

 Of course, if you are already committed to a rights based account of morality, this isn’t such a hard bullet to bite.

Question 18

 If utilitarianism is more appealing to you, you might fall back on a welfarist position rather than an abolitionist one: Sometimes, animal testing is ok. Our job is to figure out when and how it is ok.

 Even if animal testing is too important to abandon entirely, how we engage in it can be governed by rules designed to improve the lives (welfare!) of the animals used in it. A standard set of guidelines is the 3R’s:

 Replacement

 Methods which avoid or replace the use of animals

 Reduction

 Methods which minimise the number of animals used per experiment

 Refinement

 Methods which minimise animal suffering and improve welfare

Answer 18

On this type of account, what matters is that:

 We only use animals when we have reason to believe that doing so will provide benefits that other methods do not provide.

 We treat the animals we use well (where ‘well’ needs to be cashed out…)

 We optimise our experiments so we need as few animals as possible.

 We might also consider things like which animals we use: Mice rather than great apes, for example.

Question 19

Animal ethics governs how we should interact with animals, wherever we contact them, whether directly or indirectly.

 The main positions are human exceptionalism, abolitionism, and welfarism.

 Most people are, in practice, welfarists of some sort. They think we have some duties to animals, but what those duties are, and how stringent they are, varies

.  Welfarists don’t have to oppose animal testing – done in certain ways, the benefits appear to be able to outweigh the costs.

 But the burden of proof for this lies with the testers – you need to be able to make the case for why animal testing is justified, when you want to engage in it.