Where do you draw the line? Beings that feel pain? Free range farming Animal cruelty Animal testing Animal testing for drugs

Applied Ethics - The Treatment of Animals

On Whiteboards: Do animals have any moral status (should they be considered when making moral decisions)? Whether you answered yes or no, say why. On what basis? If yes, is it different to the moral status humans have? Why / why not?

What might each ethical theory say about how we should treat animals? In pairs: What might each ethical theory say about how we should treat animals? Utilitarianism Kantian Ethics Virtue Ethics

Utilitarianism and our treatment of animals

Bentham Q: Can animals suffer? A: Yes! And feel pleasure. For Utilitarianism, the aim is the maximisation of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. So for animal rights: ‘The question is not, can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But, can they suffer?’ Q: Can animals suffer? A: Yes! And feel pleasure.

Equal consideration of suffering Utilitarianism grants equal moral consideration to animals and humans. Bentham and Mill: This does not mean they will get the same treatment as humans, as there are factual differences that simply mean we cannot put them on the same level as humans. But our behaviour affects the welfare of animals to some degree, so we have a moral duty to take their suffering into account. If it can be avoided, then we should avoid it.

Singer – Preference utilitarianism Utilitarianism: ‘Each should count for one and no one for more than one’ Preference utilitarianism: ‘We should give equal weight to everybody’s preferences’ Singer: ‘Preferences express interests. Animals can’t verbalise their interests, but this doesn’t matter as long as we can understand what their interests are.’ What kind of interests do you think animals have?

Singer focuses on 2 crucial interests: Avoidance of pain/pursuit of pleasure. Avoidance of death. Ignoring these interests for our own benefit is blatant speciesism.

Speciesist: ‘Human pain is worse than animal pain’ Speciesism We have a moral duty to take the suffering of animals into account, if we don’t we are guilty of speciesism. Racists – give greater weight to members of the own race Sexists – give greater weight to their own gender Speciesists – give greater weight to members of their own species Speciesist: ‘Human pain is worse than animal pain’

Principle of equal consideration of interests: This idea of speciesism becomes even more prevalent when you compare the interests that would lead us to cause animals to suffer, with the interests of the animals themselves: Relatively minor interest (e.g. the pleasure of eating meat, or gaining a minor scientific or cosmetic advancement), must be balanced against a major interest (the lives and welfare of animals) The principle does not allow major interests to be sacrificed for minor ones

Utilitarianism Summary Happiness is pleasure and the absence of pain Bentham: The question is not ‘Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?’ Singer: Speciesism is immoral discrimination against animals just because they are not human. Animals have specific interests that we can easily identify, avoidance of pain and death. Ignoring these interests is speciesism. Principle of equal consideration of interests: If we take into account the interests of animals, but then still consider our (relatively) minor interests to be more worthwhile – we are still engaged in speciesism.

Conclusion? Ban any practices that cause suffering to animals and deliver no greater benefit to human beings.

Implications: A Final Thought Should we stop eating meat, wearing leather, conducting animal experiments? Would doing so reduce the amount of (animal) suffering in the world more than it would increase (human) suffering? What if we killed the animals humanely (after they’ve led a life without suffering) and immediately replaced them? This would keep the same level of happiness in the world. Would this be acceptable?

Deontology and our treatment of animals

Kant: We only have duties to other rational agents Animals aren’t rational, so they have no rights or moral status. They do not have their own independent will. They are not ends in themselves, but only a means to our ends. We have no direct duties (i.e. duties based on concern for animal welfare) towards animals Any duties we do have toward them will refer to a human interest (indirect duties)…

Indirect Duties An indirect duty is a duty that we have towards something due to it’s relationship with another rational being. Essentially, we can harm animals as long as: As long as treating animals badly doesn’t violate anyone’s property rights As long as treating animals badly doesn’t turn us into the sort of people that would treat humans badly

In your notes: Read through Kant’s core argument (p. 2 of handout) Put a * by any premises which you disagree with Explain in your own words on your table how Kant gets to the conclusion that we can treat animals how we like as long as we aren’t damaging a person’s property or becoming cruel to other humans.

What does this say about humans who don’t have rationality? We have no direct duties towards them!

Indirect duty 1: Animals as property Kant’s view commits us to the rather brutal idea that animals do not matter morally, all that matters morally are property rights. Cat / lawn example Does this seem right?

Cruelty to animals as bad habit forming “He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men” So you owe it to the rest of humanity, and not the animals that you are hurting, to avoid cat bashing etc. Do each of these premises seem right? Why / why not? Relies on there being evidence of a link If it turns out hurting animals stops us hurting people – is it morally good?!

Kant Summary Human beings are ends in themselves. We have a rational will and can adopt ends. This is the only thing that is unconditionally good. The goodness of every other end depends upon being adopted by a will. Animals are not rational, and so are not ends in themselves. So they can be treated as means to our ends as long as: As long as treating animals badly doesn’t violate anyone’s property rights As long as treating animals badly doesn’t turn us into the sort of people that would treat humans badly

Virtue Theory and our treatment of animals What would Aristotle say?

Starting Point - Aristotle: Natural hierarchy of things Animals do not have the ability to reason The function of things further down the chain is to serve the needs of those higher up the chain. Conclusion: We can use animals to serve our purposes if it contributes to our own Eudaimonia to do so! Which other theory does this sound like?

Can you think what she might say? Modern Virtue Ethics Since Aristotle was out and out speciesist in his writings, we’re going to instead look at some of the ways people have tried to argue for animal rights due to modern virtue ethics. Starting with Mary Rosalind Hursthouse. Can you think what she might say?

The middle ground between two extremes: Kant & Aristotle : too callous and cruel? Singer: overly sensitive? Modern Virtue Ethics – does it put animals in their proper moral position?

Whats usually the first question we ask when discussing animal rights Whats usually the first question we ask when discussing animal rights? (What did we ask today?)

Starting Point Hursthouse acknowledges that the first question we usually ask when discussing animal rights is “What is the moral status of animals?” She thinks however this is the wrong question to ask. All animals are different (in characteristics and roles) so trying to ascribe a blanket ‘moral status’ to all of them achieves nothing.

Rights and Responsibilities Instead she argues we should be concerned with the responsibilities we have towards animals on a case by case basis. This is because how we act in regards to our responsibilities will demonstrate which virtues we have developed, and which vices we are unfortunately practicing.

A1 – Factory Farming Usually ethical theories ask “How should we treat particular animals?” But for Hursthouse, this is the wrong question, she’s more concerned with “How should we respond to the treatment of animals in particular situations?” She asks this because it (hopefully) reveals what kind of virtues and vices people are practicing and emphasising.

Is it wrong to eat chickens that are reared this way? A1 – Factory Farming Every day millions of chickens are kept in darkness. They have been selectively bred to the point where many grow so quickly that they cannot stand. The conditions are cramped so that many cannot move. After 40 days of existence (chickens normally live for 7 years) the chickens are killed for their meat. Is it wrong to eat chickens that are reared this way? Read through the response that Hursthouse gives to the issue of factory- farming on page 167 (under the title A1). What is the response that Hursthouse gives from a Virtue Ethics perspective? (What vices are we following / Virtues are we failing?) How does this differ from other ethical theories in regards to it’s treatment of the Animal Rights issue?

A1 – Factory Farming In the case of factory farming it’s hard to deny that the practice is cruel and callous. Yet we still willingly eat chicken. This shows a severe lack of compassion and temperance (indulging at the expense of virtues), and a willingness to accept certain vices if it suits us. According to Hursthouse, this shows our attitude in regards to factory-farming is wrong. We are not following the virtues (Do X) instead we are falling prey to the vices (Avoid Y). Therefore, we should stop supporting this practice.

A2 – Animal Experimentation Globally, around 80,000 non-human primates (including chimps) are used in medical experiments each year. The research includes testing the effectiveness and toxicity of drugs. Is it morally right to use non-human primates for medical research that benefits humans? Read through the response that Hursthouse gives to the issue of animal experimentation on page 167 (under the title A2). What is the red-herring in the problem? Why does Tom Regan think it’s possible to perform animal experimentation without being considered cruel? Why does Hursthouse disagree? Why does she think we are failing to show compassion again? Are there any animal experiments you could deem necessary?

A2 – Animal Experimentation The fact some of the animals are similar to us shouldn’t matter. It’s about our attitude to their use. Tom Regan says that cruelty is unnecessary suffering caused by someone who enjoys it or is indifferent. If you regret the pain you’ve caused, it’s not cruelty. Hursthouse disagrees, taking a more literal definition, cruelty is unnecessary suffering. She then argues that no animal experimentation is necessary. The goods never outweigh the pain caused and we often don’t need the new products they are testing. As a result, if we support experimentation we are not being compassionate.

Counter Response – Is some experimentation necessary? If we can show that some animal experimentation is necessary (because it has produced a result that has allowed people to universally work towards Eudaimonia?) then we can make a valid case for saying it was the more compassionate thing to do. What about these cases?

The Relationship Focus The speciesism argument misses the point. It’s not just the capacities of the being that determine how we should treat it, but also our relationship to it. There is a moral importance to bonding – our bond to other human beings is special because we share humanity. Our bond with some animals is special because we share the natural course of life, and things like pleasure and pain. To ignore this bond and not recognise the importance of animal suffering is to show a lack of compassion, whilst to treat them as a meat-growing machine is to display a relationship that is incredibly selfish and self-centred. These are obviously vices that should be avoided, leading us to suggest that Virtue Ethicists should support animal rights where necessary.

Virtue Ethics Summary Animals are not rational and cannot share in eudaimonia So our moral concern with eudaimonia has little place for considering animals Recent virtue theory: there are virtuous and vicious ways of treating animals What matters is not just capacities, but relationship We are not wrong to privilege those closest to us But we do form bonds with animals, and we share aspects of our form of life with them. Ignoring this bond shows a lack of compassion and to treat them merely as a meat growing machines is cruel – both vices that should be avoided.

Summary Outline a Virtue Ethicist response to the issue of Animal Rights (12 marks) How would you lay this out?

Which moral theory has the best approach to the treatment of animals Which moral theory has the best approach to the treatment of animals? Why?

Homework – Singer and Kant Singer has often been at the centre of controversy surrounding his views on animal rights, he is often seen as too soft. Some of the arguments against his views include: Animals eat each other so why don’t we eat them? Ethics is a contract between people for mutual benefits, animals can’t reciprocate. Human beings are overwhelmingly superior to animals and the principle of equality does not apply. On the other hand Kants view is often seen as extremely harsh whilst VE lies somewhere in the middle. Put together a mind-map / spider diagram showing the arguments against Singer, Kant’s and Virtue Ethics view of animal rights. Add any responses as well. Use your handouts to help you (do not just copy them).