Topic 19: Animal Ethics PDF

 Topic 19: How Important Are Consequences in Determining How We Think about Our Engagement with Animals? and humans, as we know, are not always the When you have completed this topic, you...

 Topic 19: How Important Are Consequences in Determining How We Think about Our Engagement with Animals? and humans, as we know, are not always the When you have completed this topic, you best judge of what is right and wrong. The really should: big issue seems to be not why we should care about the welfare of animals in particular, but Know what makes moral standards the broader issue of why we should care about different from other standards anything at all. It seems like what we need is Understand what ethical relativism is some kind of objective decision rule to help us and why it is problematic as an decide what we should care about and how ethical framework much we should care. We can then see where Be familiar with the concept of different animals fit relative to this rule. ethical egoism Moral decision making Be able to discuss the strengths and When we ask questions about what we should weaknesses of utilitarianism, do, we are often referring to what might be including how it might be applied to called moral issues. These are issues where animals there is not really a correct or incorrect response according to any set rules, but where some responses might be ‘more right’ than others Previously we discussed the animal advocacy according to a general set of principles. The movement, and how many advocacy groups words moral and morality actually have several believe that we should either stop using animals meanings, but they generally refer in some way for our own purposes completely, or at least pay to the internal rules that govern and limit human much more attention to enhancing the welfare conduct. of the animals that we use. We then considered why this might be the case. It is all very well for Moral philosophers, and other people who animal advocates to insist that we should care study morality, often consider hypothetical about animals, but we are perfectly entitled to scenarios that can be quite confronting. Be ask ‘why animals and not sports cars’? The advised that this topic explores some of these simple fact that something is an animal does not in moderate detail. seem sufficient, unless we are prepared to argue You can read about definitions of ‘moral’ and that dead sea slugs deserve the same level of ‘morality’ on these websites: concern as live elephants. o http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral We also considered whether we can use our o http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality legal system or our religious beliefs as a guide o http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ to what we should care about. Both seem moral inadequate, mostly because they are reliant on o http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ humans for their construction and interpretation morality All of us have morals or moral rules by which we As a social worker there are a variety of options make judgements concerning how to act. You available to you. You could let the girl keep her might have a moral rule that requires you to take baby, place it in a foster home until the girl and care of people less fortunate than yourself, or her family prove themselves able to care for it, you might have a moral rule requiring you to or place it permanently with adoptive parents. look out primarily for number one. Of course, So, what should you do? everyone’s moral code is different, from Mother Although you may have strong views about this Teresa through to Osama Bin Laden through to particular case, it turns out that the ‘right’ thing Kim Kardashian, reflecting a combination of to do is not immediately obvious. In fact, if you underlying personality structures and presented this case to your friends and family experiences since birth. There are also marked members they might well disagree as to which differences in how strongly we adhere to our option should be selected. moral codes and how much discomfort we feel when we fail to do so. Some people are able to We are not particularly concerned with how turn a blind eye to issues that they believe are social workers should act but, because different morally important, while others are compelled people make different decisions in cases like to address things that they care about, even if this and appear to have different moral systems, doing so threatens their own life or welfare. you can probably understand that it makes sense to study these systems to see which are superior and why. The word ethics refers to a branch of philosophy concerned with understanding the standards by which human actions can be judged right or wrong. There are two branches of ethics that are of interest to us. The first is called normative ethics. This is that part of the discipline that seeks to establish, compare and evaluate norms or standards of conduct. The second is applied ethics, which consists of the application of normative ethical theories to practical moral problems. To begin thinking about the kinds of issues that we might call ‘moral’ issues, pretend for a minute that you are a social worker. You turn up for work one day and are presented with the case of a pregnant schoolgirl who is about to become Australia's youngest mum. The girl, who was just 11 years old when she became pregnant, is in your office, pleading with you to let her keep her baby. She is worried that it will be taken into care because she is so young, and because the house she shares with her single mother and five brothers and sisters is very small and crowded. She explains that she loves Note that very few of our decisions are actually babies and thinks that being a mum will come moral decisions. Deciding what to wear to a naturally and, also, that if her baby is taken away party is not a moral decision and nor is deciding before she has a chance to prove herself as a whether to listen to rock and roll or heavy metal mother, she will end up depressed and may music. Even though we have fashion standards engage in self-harm. that dictate what we wear and listen to, moral standards differ from other standards, according to philosopher William Shaw (1993), in three their families and the wider community. People important ways. First, they are concerned with who support it, make reference to values like behaviour that can be of serious consequences justice and retribution. Those who do not to the welfare of others. If you wear the wrong support it, make reference to the inherent value clothes you might make your friends laugh at of human life. The point is that nobody bases you, but this is not likely to harm anything their arguments on trivial things like saving except your pride. Second, because of their room in prisons and saving money. Because it is importance, moral standards generally take a moral issue the arguments need to be well priority over other standards. If the law says that thought out and very clearly justified by you have to go and fight in a foreign country, reference to important values, and these take but you are morally opposed to warfare, then precedence over other issues. you might choose to risk prison or a huge fine How to avoid ethical relativism rather than go against your moral standards. Third, the soundness of moral standards In a previous topic we considered whether it is depends purely on the reasons used to support appropriate to make moral decisions on the them. Fashion and music standards can be set basis of things like laws and religious beliefs. by the rich and famous, just for fun, but moral Making moral decisions according to what some standards should make sense to everybody, authority figure says is called ethical relativism. even those who do not agree with them, If you are an ethical relativist and you are living because they are well thought out and in a community where everyone else thinks it is defendable by reference to core human values. ‘right’ to murder and eat short people, then doing so is morally right, simply by definition. Ethical relativism is useful for understanding why ‘good’ people, in other times and places, have engaged in practices, like slavery and cannibalism and animal cruelty, which now seem totally unacceptable. It is also useful for understanding why many people, even now, fail to question accepted practices. Such people are not evil or stupid, but honestly believe that they are doing the morally ‘right’ thing because they unquestioningly accept the prevailing beliefs and practices. Ethical relativism is dangerous, however, because it means we can get locked into believing that the way things are right now is morally right, even though we now know that much of our reality is socially constructed. Even worse, we have to accept that current practices in other countries are also morally ‘right’ if they are widely accepted in those countries. In some countries, children are still forced to work from a very young age, dogs are tortured before being killed so that their flesh will be tender when it is eaten by humans, and bears are locked in tiny cages for their entire lives, so that bile can be extracted from their liver for the As an example of a moral issue, consider capital production of aphrodisiacs. If even one of these punishment. It is considered to be a moral issue practices seems morally wrong to you, even because of the effect that it has on criminals, though it is culturally acceptable in some parts of the world, then ethical relativism is not for we used in the activity was selected because of you. Just think where we would be if we never the level of disagreement among people questioned any of the practices our ancestors considering this scenario. Some people are engaged in, and the problems of ethical adamant that an innocent child should be relativism should be clear. tortured if doing so might save hundreds of lives. Others are equally adamant that this is not Moral theorists try hard to avoid the problems something they could ever condone, regardless of ethical relativism by looking for universal of the strong motivation or potential principles that underlie good moral decision consequences. Others are less certain and making. To do this, they use examples like the sometimes change their mind if it is their family pregnant teenager, what we might call moral members who are said to be at great risk of dilemmas, to activate moral reasoning. They can being injured or killed or if it is their father who then look for commonalities in how these is the mad bomber. Which category do you fall dilemmas are addressed. Below is another into? example for you to consider. A political activist who has threatened to As it turns out, the two general approaches explode several bombs in crowded areas has described in the preceding paragraph are been apprehended. Unfortunately, he has consistent with the two dominant views of already planted the bombs and they are morality that our culture endorses. On the one scheduled to explode in a short time. It is hand we have what is called the consequentialist possible that hundreds of people may die. The approach to moral reasoning. This approach officers you command cannot make him divulge holds that the right thing to do is that which the location of the bombs by conventional produces the ‘best’ consequences overall. On methods. He refuses to say anything and the other hand, we have what is called the requests a lawyer to protect his right against deontological or non-consequentialist app- self-incrimination. In exasperation, one of your roach. This approach holds that there are moral officers suggests using torture. Moreover, rather principles (including one which prohibits the than torturing the criminal, who may not torture of innocent children) which should be respond, he suggests that you torture the man’s upheld regardless of the consequences of innocent wife or his young child, whom he loves adhering to these principles. To understand our very much. Both of these strategies would be views about animals, we really need to be illegal, of course, but your officers argue that familiar with both of these approaches. one of them might be the ‘right’ thing to do in The first thing you need to ask yourself is this desperate situation. What should you do? whether anything matters to you at all. This Why? might seem like an odd question, but you can probably imagine a world in which nothing really matters, and everybody just does what they want all of the time, even if it results in destruction or total chaos. When people are severely depressed, they often seem to stop caring about anything, even about whether they live or die. Most of us, however, care about something, even if it is only ourselves. Philosophers use the term ‘ethical egoism’ to describe people who care only about themselves. Ethical egoists believe that the only thing of value is their own welfare. Therefore, If you go to this link, you’ll find the website from the morally right thing to do in any situation is which this example was adapted. The example the act that will bring about the best consequences for themselves. There are ‘consequentialism’. While ethical egoism is a different types of ethical egoists, depending on simple form of consequentialism, where the how they define what is in their best interests. person cares only about the consequences for Some egoists are hedonistic. This means that themselves, a more common consequentialist they believe that the only important thing is approach is called utilitarianism. According to their own immediate happiness. Other egoists utilitarianism, to determine if any given act is might think that other things are more morally right or morally wrong, one simply has important than immediate happiness, such as to weigh up the balance of good (usually long-term happiness, health, or the defined as happiness, joy or wellness) and bad accumulation of knowledge or power. The (generally defined as sadness, pain or suffering) common theme, however, is that self-interest is consequences arising from that act, taking into the driving moral principle. If an egoist is nice to account everyone that will be affected by the other people or animals, it is only because he or act. If a given act leads to more good than bad, she thinks it will ‘pay off’ in terms of some then it is the morally right thing to do. personal benefit. If you think about your own actions, you can probably recall many situations in which you have used utilitarianism to guide your behaviour. Maybe you had to decide whether to give money to Charity A or Charity B and you decided on the basis of where you thought your contribution would do the most good. Maybe you had an opportunity to steal something belonging to someone else, but decided against doing so not because theft is illegal, but because the other person would be unfairly disadvantaged by your actions. Maybe you even Note that ethical egoists would not care what did something quite drastic, like giving up your happened to the pregnant teenager or her baby, spot on the local football team or choir because and they would not care whether the bomber you knew that the team would be better off was successful in his mission or not, unless it without you. directly impacted upon them. Society as we In the examples of moral reasoning we have know it could not function if ethical egoism was considered in this topic, you might have common. While all human societies appear to believed that the girl should give up the baby contain the occasional sociopath, most humans because this would give it a better life or, are concerned about many things, from family alternatively, that she should keep the baby so members and pets, to world peace and the that she would not get depressed. You might global environment. Thankfully, caring about similarly have decided that the investigators others seems to be a prolific human trait. were ‘right’ to torture the child of the bomber Once we admit that we care about something because this could potentially avert the death of other than ourselves, it has implications for how many people, or you might have decided that it we think and act. Most importantly, it means that was not right to torture innocent children we need to make decisions about how to act in because this would encourage others to do the relation to the things we care about. How might same in other circumstances. The point is not we do this? what you decided, but whether you justified your decision by appealing to the likely Consequentialism consequences of the action you chose. Keep in Many people decide how to act by reference to mind, though, that to be a good utilitarian you the consequences of the action. This is called need to balance everyone’s interests equally. So, you may not give preference to the interests of off couple unable to have their own children. But the mother or the interests of the baby or the we would be totally wrong if there was a house interests of the bomber’s child. Instead, you fire in the week following the adoption, resulting have to calculate ALL of the likely consequences in the baby’s death. Alternatively, we might as dispassionately as you can to make your predict that the mother would be ‘better off’ judgment. keeping her baby, only to find out that she hates being a mother and turns to drugs and alcohol to help her cope. One problem with utilitarianism, therefore, is that, as humans, we can only make moral decisions on the basis of the information we have available, and we generally cannot see into the future. It seems unfair to say that people who make decisions that lead to bad consequences are always acting immorally, regardless of how carefully they considered the options or their intentions at the time. Most of Utilitarianism is a good, practical way of making us think that, while consequences are important, important decisions about right and wrong things like intentions should also be taken into actions and most of us use a utilitarian account when deciding the moral value of any framework most of the time, although we do given act. have a nasty tendency to put our own interests above those of other people rather than weighing them equally. But can utilitarianism give us the kind of moral rule we are looking for to help us decide how we should treat animals? The answer to this question depends on how we resolve a few outstanding issues. Issue A: The crystal ball problem Most people agree that the important consequences when making moral calculations are things like pain and suffering on the one hand, and joy and happiness on the other. If Issue B: What consequences count? possible, this argument goes, we should act so A second problem with utilitarianism is that as to cause as much happiness as possible and acting in a way that causes the most happiness as little suffering as possible. or good overall might require that we cause This is a pretty good rule, so far as it goes, and great harm to an individual. This is the problem it explains why we generally should not kill we confronted in our discussion of whether we people, steal property, or tell untruths, and why should torture one innocent child to save the we should give assistance to people in need. lives of many people. This is another example There are problems with utilitarianism, however, where the conflict is even more apparent. because sometimes it is difficult, or even Imagine that you live in a small town and there impossible, to predict in advance what the is a terrible bus crash. A bunch of gifted consequences of our actions will be. In our case children, on their way to a school camp, are of the young pregnant girl, we might predict severely injured. Several are going to die unless that the baby would be ‘better off’ being they receive organ transplants immediately, but permanently adopted into the home of a well- there are no organs available. The local doctor proposes killing, humanely of course, a severely of the trapped inhabitants is closely related to cognitively disabled orphan child. She argues the utilitarian; all inhabitants are equal for the that this child would be a good source of spare purposes of the calculations. body parts and that, since the child is currently residing permanently in the back ward of a local nursing home, the good consequences for the gifted children and the general community would far outweigh the consequences for the disabled child. Do you agree that this is the morally right action? A committed utilitarian might endorse this view, but many people argue that doing so would be morally wrong, even if the consequences for the gifted children, their families and the rest of the community were enormously good. Generally, we simply do not agree that it is acceptable to murder someone, even if doing so would benefit many more people. Philosophers who support utilitarianism as a moral theory have adopted various strategies to get around this kind of difficult situation. The most common is to argue that, while the act of murdering the disabled child might, in this Clearly this is not how most of us think. We give instance, seem justified, the general rule against preference to our family members, to our murder is sufficiently important in terms of neighbours, to our wider community, and to overall consequences to justify making those who share our country and culture first, decisions that seem at odds with the general and we rarely feel guilty about doing so. And principle of utilitarianism. This explanation what should we do if among the occupants of always seems a bit strained, but there is an even the burning house is a much-loved family pet, a bigger problem with utilitarianism that is much-needed assistance dog, or the last living particularly relevant in this context. This pair of spotted red-tailed squirrels? concerns the need to decide who counts when Traditionally, of course, animals were not taken we are calculating the consequences of any into consideration at all in moral dilemmas of given action. this kind. They simply were not believed to be a genuine ‘other’ any more than would be a car or Issue C: Who do we include in our calculations? a table or a tree. It would always be morally In the perfect mathematical world of the wrong, therefore, to rescue an animal before a utilitarian, the costs and benefits of a given human, even if the animal was extremely action are objectively weighed up, completely valuable in some way and the human was a very independently of the particular entities affected. ill paedophile who was about to be put to death Thus, if a utilitarian is confronted with a burning for committing dreadful crimes. The only thing building in which several inhabitants are that could justify saving an animal would be if trapped, he or she is required to either the consequences of doing so for humans were dispassionately tally up the moral worth of each important – the consequences for animals are inhabitant before deciding who to rescue first, irrelevant. or to rescue those present in no particular order at all. On no account should it matter that one The inclusion of animals in consequentialist thinking Jeremy Bentham was the first philosopher to argue that we should include animals in consequentialist ethics. He was a wealthy British gentleman who lived in the late 1700s (1748- 1832) and he trained as a lawyer before becoming a social activist and writer. After reading some books on philosophy Bentham founded the moral theory of utilitarianism, arguing that “...self-interest or ethical egoism was not an appropriate means by which to judge The following is a famous quote of Bentham’s the rightness or wrongness of actions" and that, that you will read often if you ever get interested instead, "the consequences for all affected in animal ethics: should count equally.” “It may one day come to be recognised that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they Bentham was primarily concerned with social talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law justice, and with how economically refuse its protection to any sensitive being? The disadvantaged people were often discriminated time will come when humanity will extend its against for no good reason. Importantly for us, mantle over everything which breathes...” however, he thought that the ability to suffer, rather than the ability to reason or talk, should To read more about Jeremy Bentham, visit this be the determining factor in whether or not an website. entity is taken into account when we are Note that what this quote says is that suffering weighing up the consequences of our actions. In is the most important thing morally. This was addition, he thought it was fairly obvious that quite a radical departure from existing moral animals could suffer. One of the interesting theories, which usually held that the capacity to things about Bentham is that he was not a reason or use language was the morally vegetarian. Although he thought suffering was important factor that separated humans from all morally important, he was not concerned about other living organisms. As Bentham rightly killing animals for our own purposes or using pointed out, there is no good reason to base them in other ways, provided they did not suffer. our moral theories on these other skills. In So, his views were consistent with some of the addition, if we do so, it always turns out that more moderate animal advocacy groups we some animals outrank some humans. Well spoke about, like WAP and the HSUS, and also trained dogs, for example, are undoubtedly the RSPCA. more rational and more communicative than newborn human infants. Following on from Bentham, whose writings about animals were largely ignored for two hundred years or so, the utilitarian line of argument was made famous by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer in his book, Animal Liberation, in 1975. Basically, the claim made by Singer was the same as that made by Bentham. He argued that consequentialists could not rationally exclude nonhuman animals from their calculations of costs and benefits because at least some animals have the ability to suffer and because suffering is the most important thing when classifying ‘others’ and making moral calculations. Contrary to what some of Singer’s opponents have claimed, he did not argue that we should treat animals exactly as we treat humans. Nor did he argue that all animals are equal, such that we owe a similar duty of care to chimpanzees and slugs. The argument is simply that, to the extent that any two organisms are capable of suffering equally, their interests in not suffering should be given equal weight. Often, if we use the utilitarian form of moral reasoning, we will conclude that human As an example, imagine that we want to test a interests should receive priority, simply because new drug for pain relief and that our experiment humans appear capable of more sophisticated requires us to inflict excruciating pain on some forms of suffering than are many other kind of mammal for up to two hours. Assuming creatures. Humans, for example, seem unique in that we have already established that there will the degree to which they are able to anticipate be no lasting effects of the drug, the utilitarian harm, and in the degree to which they can suffer may well be better off testing the drug on simply by knowing that someone else is being human participants. Humans would be able to harmed. Thus, harming a human can have a understand that the pain will be temporary and ripple effect on other humans, particularly family voluntarily consent to participate in the and friends, eventually causing more harm than experiment. In contrast, nonhuman animals would be caused if an animal was harmed in the would be unable to receive some small degree same way as the initial human. of comfort from being given the same Nonetheless, in principle, if a human can be information and, of course, they are unable to found that suffers less in a particular context decide whether or not they are prepared to than would an animal, then a utilitarian has no suffer the pain for some kind of longer-term choice but to harm the human rather than the benefit. animal. To do otherwise is to be guilty of what In the real world, of course, we very rarely need Richard Ryder (2011) called speciesism, which, to make life and death decisions or decisions Singer claimed, is no more defensible than the where we need to compare identical other ‘isms’, like racism, sexism, ageism, and consequences for humans and animals. One of nepotism. the important points made by Singer in his book is that, at present, the scales are weighted far too much in favour of humans. In the burning house example from earlier in this topic, it would the animals were well taken care of and be reasonable to expect that a rescuer would humanely killed. The utilitarian way of looking at choose to get all humans out before attempting things is also consistent with the line of to save any animals that were present. It hardly reasoning put forth by Andrew Linzey, the seems fair, however, to force hundreds of Christian theologist we spoke about previously. animals to undergo painful experiments for the Linzey, you might remember, argued that killing sake of developing a new shade of eye makeup. any spirit-filled organism can be justified by Humans and other animals may not be exactly Christians only if their own survival requires it – equal in the big scheme of things but, the if the good consequences for them outweigh the utilitarians would argue, surely nonhuman bad consequences for the animal ‘other’. Singer animal suffering must count for something when and other utilitarians would agree with this we do our calculations of costs and benefits. provided, and this is a big qualifier, that any bad consequences for animals are really outweighed An important point to note is that Singer does by good consequences, either for other animals not believe that animals have rights, even or for people. This is not the case with many of though his name is often associated with the our current activities, but perhaps it is animal rights movement. Within the utilitarian something we should be aiming for. framework animals do not have moral rights – but neither do humans. There are no such Summary things. To summarise, moral philosophy is all about identifying the rules we use to make decisions about right and wrong. Importantly, these rules are supposed to be as independent as possible from our laws and our religions because, otherwise, we end up being ethical relativists, believing that things are right or wrong simply because those in authority say so. For many reasons this is not such a good idea! One of the most popular moral frameworks identified by moral philosophers is consequentialism or, more specifically, utilitar- ianism. In principle this is a pretty easy theory to understand, because it says simply that we should decide what is important and how we should act on the basis of the consequences of our actions. This works pretty well but there are a few difficulties. First, it can be difficult to anticipate what the consequences of our actions will be. Although most of us would agree that consequences are important, many would insist that intentions are equally valid in determining the moral worth of how a person acts. Second, we need to decide what consequences matter. Sometimes, if we take into account overall This way of thinking fits well with the more consequences, we end up justifying great harm moderate animal advocacy groups discussed to individuals. Most of us are not comfortable previously. You might remember that there were with this and, although rule utilitarianism avoids many groups who believed that it was OK in some of the problems, it does not always work. principle for humans to use animals, provided Third, we need to decide who counts as moral others. This has been a bit of a sticking point for reasonable to conclude that, if animals can utilitarianism in relation to animals, especially in suffer, if our actions are likely to cause suffering the days when people did not believe that to one or more animals, and if this suffering animals were capable of suffering, let alone counts in a moral sense, then maybe we do need reasoning or language or any of the other things to take this into account when we make thought to be morally significant. We will worry decisions about how animals will live in our about this issue another day. For now, it seems society. References and/or supplementary resources Ryder, R. (2011). Speciesism, painism and happiness: A morality for the twenty-first century. Imprint Academic. Shaw, W. H. (1993). Social and personal ethics. Wadsworth Publishing Company. Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation. Pimlico.