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?

Applied Ethics – Should we kill animals for meat?

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

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.

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: Relatively minor interest (e.g. the pleasure of eating meat), 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

Implications: A Final Thought Should we stop eating meat? 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?

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 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

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?!

Virtue Ethics - 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. This is 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?

Hursthouse – 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? 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? 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. Therefore, we should stop supporting this practice.

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.