Chapter Sections
1. Animal Ethics
2. Animal Rights
3. Comparing Animal
Philosophies
How to Do Animal Rights - and Win the War on Animals
Know Your Animal Ethics & Animal Rights
 |
"Philosophy ought to question the basic assumptions of the age. Thinking through, critically and carefully, what most people take for granted is, I believe, the chief task of philosophy, and it is this task that makes philosophy a worthwhile activity." Peter Singer (1) |
Background
When you are active in animal rights you should know why you are being active and be able to defend your actions rationally. Simply being emotional about animals is not enough because the opposition may be equally emotionally back at you, resulting in a stalemate. However, by stating your case rationally you can convince people of your cause and win converts and that is surely part of doing animal rights. Even the most emotional opponents, if they can be made to see sense, are susceptible to rational arguments.
This chapter is not about arguing for animal rights but rather sets out its rational background so that philosophically you know where you are and have an idea of where you are going. First it discusses the broad background of animal ethics, then goes on to what rights are and finally compares animal rights with animal ethics and other outlooks.
If you methodically question the meaning and purpose of life you are a philosopher, whether you are an amateur or professional one. Ethics is the part of philosophy that asks how people should live their lives and how they should do good and right to each other. Animal ethics is ethics that deals specifically with animals. Robert Garner in his book Animal Ethics says "Animal ethics seeks to examine beliefs that are held about the moral status of non-human animals." (2) But you can define animal ethics more broadly by saying it is about acting for the moral good of animals (including humans) by understanding animal-human moral issues through knowledge and reasoning. Thus animal ethics is a practical pursuit as well as a cognitive one.
An ethical issue is when you think a harm or wrong is happening and something should be done about it. If we harm people then we must justify why we harm them and if we cannot justify our actions then we must not harm them. In the same way, animal ethics critically questions our conduct with animals. Everyone has some contact with animals directly or indirectly, whether farming or shooting animals, eating them, feeding their pets factory farmed meat and offal, going to the zoo, using substances tested on animals or washing with animal-based soap.
Our relationship with animals is based on beliefs we absorb from our upbringing and social customs. We accept these beliefs, often on trust from our elders, without challenging or analysing them. But unexamined beliefs when acted out can do enormous harm. Most people do not realise the suffering and destruction humanity imposes on animals because the suffering goes on largely out of sight and where it peaks above the surface it is tolerated as normal. The harm humans are doing to animals amounts to a holocaust that we must address and this is why animal ethics is important. If we are to make civilized progress we must comprehend what we are doing to animals and think about how we should be treating them. We must ask what we are doing, why we are doing it, how should we and how can we do better - and take action. Therefore all of us must justify and defend our relations with animals in light of ethics.
Before going further, a summary of some key concepts mentioned in this chapter may be helpful.
- Sentiency: being able to suffer and feel pleasure.
- Moral rights: conferral of protection or privilege.
- Moral status: worthy of moral consideration and moral rights.
- Interests: a stake in fulfilling a life's natural potential.
- Intrinsic value: a value something has independent of its usefulness.
- Equal consideration of interests: giving weight to everyone's welfare.
- Speciesism: prejudice favouring one’s own species.
- Utilitarianism: theory that states an action is morally right if it benefits the largest number of beings with the greatest good.
That animals are made for human use is a traditional attitude, at any rate in Western society, and held at least from Old Testament times up to Darwin (1809 - 1882). Aristotle (384 - 322 BC) thought animals exist to provide humans with food and other provisions; Aquinas (1225 - 1274) claimed that killing animals is acceptable and we can treat them in any way useful to us; and Descartes (1596 - 1650) asserted that animal are mindless robots which cannot suffer, the corollary being that we can do almost anything to them.
People have always had to emphasise differences between man and beast to maintain and defend their belief in human superiority. The rationally inclined assert animals lack reason, intelligence, language and creativity. The spiritually inclined believe animals are not made in the 'image of God' and, even though some of them appreciate and admire animals as God's creatures, many of them are largely unresponsive to animal misfortune and distress. Generally, people protect some animals, but only if the animals belong to people as property. Darwin, however, significantly helped begin the demolition of human centredness by convincingly arguing that animals and humans evolved from the same ancestors (although he did not dare write this overtly). Common evolutionary descent explains why humans share the same appearance as animals, especially the apes. This shocked the Victorian public of Darwin's day but his evolutionary theory in outline is widely accepted today.
Thus an ethical dilemma arose. Animals and humans are similar. So if humans have moral status then animals should have moral status too. For most of the history of Western philosophy just about everyone passed off the moral status of animals as a trivial and insignificant question. However, since the 1970's an energetic debate has been waging about animal moral status, ignited by firebrand philosophers such as Peter Singer (see Chapter 6).
The animal moral status debate is founded on basic, common moral principles: it is wrong to cause suffering and it is wrong to discriminate against others by giving greater importance to your own group. Apply these principles consistently, says Singer, and they lead to the logical conclusion that we should morally treat animals like humans, provided the animals have relevant similarities with humans.
Some animal oriented philosophers say the only really important morally relevant similarity of animals with humans is that both can feel pain and suffer, that they are sentient. The great English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832) is often quoted as writing:
"The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire the rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. ...the question is not, Can they reason? not, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" (3)So we must distinguish the relevant similarities of animals and humans (sentiency) and not use inaccurate attributes to justify excluding animals from our moral consideration. Relevant similarities in practical every day terms boil down to basic requirements, such as the right to reproduce and pass on your genes, the right to liberty and the right to not to be forced to suffer for the gain of others (as in experimentation and farming).
However, many people today still cannot accept animals on the same moral level as humanity, even while acknowledging the contributions of Darwin. But thanks to Peter Singer and some fellow philosophers it is said that there is more controversy and discussion about animals today than during all past times combined.
How to Proceed?
When we make a judgement about the rights or wrongs of a situation our views and actions must be based on knowledge and reason. We must examine our thoughts and feelings carefully. We cannot rely completely on our intuition or feelings because people may be manipulating us for their own purpose without our realising what is happening. We cannot rely on faith, religion, authority, the law, social standards, tradition, precedent, fashion, immediate impression, emotional illogic, fantasy, magic and many other reasons that are not necessarily rational.
Reasons for acting ethically can be simple or complex, tempered by intuition or emotion, or whatever. But our reasons for acting ethically must be consistent, comprehensive and based on fact, that is on the truth of the matter as far as we know it. And our reasons for acting ethically must work the 6C Way:
- Clearly - can be understood.
- Concisely - not verbose or diffuse.
- Compatibly - agreeing with basic sensitivity of what is right and good.
- Consistently - without contradictions.
- Constructively - extending our judgement to new or ambiguous areas by building on what we already understand and accept.
- Comprehensively - not ad hoc but relevant to all kinds of problems.
Ethical theories (also called moral systems or moral frameworks) offer ways to organise your thoughts when you make decisions about which moral action to take. They also enable you to see other people's position on moral issues better. Ethicists have developed three influential ethical theories that answer the three moral questions people have asked down the centuries. Most ethical positions can be understood against one or more of them. The three moral questions people ask are:
Consequence Ethics says you should act to bring about the best results or consequences. This theory is also called Consequentialism and its traditional name in philosophy is Teleology, from the Greek teleos meaning end or purpose.
Consequence Ethics is goal-directed. It asserts that only the good outcome of your goal or action is important, not how you achieve your goal. You need not be dutiful or virtuous - you can even lie, cheat or whatever - so long as the end result is morally good. Say you see a couple of sheep or pigs escape from a slaughterhouse. You might believe that taking them back to be killed is immoral, so you snatch them up, hide them and lie that you do not know where they are. Your action focuses on results, the saving of the animals from slaughter, and you would believe, at least in this case, that this is morally more important than stealing and lying.
Duty Ethics says you should do whatever is your duty, even if by doing it you harm yourself or others by suffering the consequences. For King and country, right or wrong, is a Duty Ethics dictum. Duty Ethics is also called Deontology.
Duty Ethics opposes Consequence Ethics. Doing what you consider is your obligation (or duty) is more important than the outcome of your action. As a rancher you might hate shooting predators but accept that you have an obligation to protect your cattle regardless of your action's impact on wildlife. Or you might release laboratory animals used in experiments because you see it as your duty to animalkind; alternatively you might condemn this behaviour because you believe your first duty is upholding the law and the standards of society as you see it (moral theories can work both ways!).
Virtue Ethics says you should act as a virtuous person would act. Virtue Ethics says you cannot isolate the making of ethical decisions from your personality. Your good actions are the result of good character. A person of good character is someone who has good admirable personal qualities, such as compassion, kindness, respect, toleration, honesty and courage. Possessing admirable personal qualities makes you a virtuous person. This philosophical outlook is also called Virtue Theory or Value Theory.
Virtue Ethics flourished in Ancient Greece and Aristotle (BC 384 - 322) is often cited as its main philosophical representative. He argued that a virtue is the mean or middle path between two vices, like courage is better than fearlessness or cowardice. Virtue Ethics expired in the fourth century AD when moral theories purporting to be given by God supplanted it. However, the 20th century brought it back to life and modernised it. Modern Virtue Ethics does not emphasise specific moral traits but says you should be virtuous in all aspects of your life and be a good person all the time.
Virtue Ethics contrasts with Consequence Ethics and Duty Ethics in that it brings in all the qualities of being human - like reason, responsibility and emotion - to influence your ethical consideration. You might, for instance, approve or reprove individuals or companies, supporting only those that do not harm animals and nature. Are these individuals or companies advancing or opposing virtue? Are they progressive, admirable and responsible or insensitive, negligent and dishonest?
Ethical Theories Compared
These ethical theories - Consequence Ethics, Duty Ethics and Virtue Ethics - overlap with each other, but each focuses on a different principle. These principles reveal distinct sights into moral problems and suggest different ways for resolving them. The table below contrasts and highlights the main features of these theories.
| Table 1. Ethical Theories Comparison of Consequence Ethics, Duty Ethics & Virtue Ethics | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Consequence Ethics | Duty Ethics | Virtue Ethics | |
| Asks | How can I make the best outcome or consequence? | What are my obligations or duties? | How will my actions support my being a virtuous person? |
| Asserts Morality Is | Doing what is likely to achieve the best results. | Doing your obligation or duty. | Doing what a virtuous person would do. |
| Focuses On | The best outcome you can make. | The duty you are required to do. | What the virtuous person should do. |
| Main Concern Is | The value of results - not your duty or quality of character. | Doing your duty - whatever the consequences and whatever your character. | Your moral character - not consequences or duty. |
| Aims to | Produce the most good. | Perform the right duty. | Develop your moral character. |
| Example | Utilitarianism. Ethical Egoism. |
Rights-based ethics. Judaeo-Christianity. |
Buddhism. Confucianism. Christian Virtue. |
Choosing an Ethical Theory
Which ethical theory (Consequence, Duty or Virtue Ethics) should you follow to help you resolve an ethical issue? This partly depends on your personality. You might be more concerned about the consequences of your action than be oriented to notions of doing your duty, or visa versa. Or you might be more concerned about being virtuous.
Another suggestion commonly put forward for choosing a theory to follow is to use one that feels most natural for your particular set of circumstances. For instance it might be useful to use:
You might have to decide to save a majority of some animals at the expense of a minority of other animals - good consequences for some animals, bad consequences for other animals.
As a livestock farmer you have an obligation to send livestock for slaughter to feed people. Thus your primary duty is to people and your secondary duty is to animals, such as by being as kind to animals as economics permit.
You would apply the range of your cognitive faculties (reason, experience, logic, etc) and emotional faculties (intuition, belief, faith, etc) to act as a virtuous person would act. So, for example, should you eat animals? Your reasoning might go like this: as a virtuous person you should be compassionate to all creatures; therefore you should not cause suffering; thus you should not eat animals.
There is a third accepted way for choosing which ethical theory to follow. These ethical theories (Consequence, Duty and Virtue Ethics) sometime complement one another. So if two or all three of them support your proposed moral judgement and action you can feel more confident of being on the right moral track. For instance, people may want to stop whaling because it will upset the ecosystem (Consequence Ethics), or because there will be no whales left for posterity (Duty Ethics), or because enlightened people do not support whaling (Virtue Ethics). Thus you would consider each ethical theory in turn to find the best overall solution.
Even if you favour one ethical theory over the others, keep in mind all three theories so that you are better aware of how ethical disagreements can arise, that is when one person advocates one ethical theory that clashes with someone else advocating another ethical theory. A foxhunter or bullfighter may defend their actions as a preservation of tradition. Alternatively, you might claim that no one sympathetic to animals would kill them for sport. This can be seen as a case of Duty Ethics versus Virtue Ethics.
Do Philosophical Ideas Work?
Generations of people acquire philosophical ideas and values without realising they are doing so or without knowing where their ideas and values come from. Many of our ideas and values originated from individuals who lived, thought and died before us, examples are John Lock and Karl Marx. Few things in human society are bigger than revolutions and revolutions are made of philosophical ideas. John Locke (1632 - 1704), English physician, public servant and philosopher, significantly helped lay the foundations of our liberal society. In his lifetime his ideas about government, tyranny and the rights of man were pivotal in supplanting the English monarch in the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688. Even after his death Locke’s ideas played a leading role in the 18th century by helping to guide the American and French revolutions. The other pre-eminent thinker was a German émigré who settled in London and spent much of his time writing there at the British Library. Karl Marx (1818 - 1883) wrote the intellectual foundation of Communism that fuelled the Communist revolutions of Russia and China in the 20th century.
Hundreds of millions of people today still live under the ideas of these two thinkers, ample demonstration of the power and pervasiveness of philosophical ideas. If you are not convinced, find out where your concepts of soul and man's place in the universe come from (clue: Plato and Darwin)
References
(1) Singer, Peter. Applied Ethics. Oxford University Press: Oxford. 1986:226.
(2) Garner, Robert. Animal Ethics. Polity Press. 2005:12.
(3) Bentham, Jeremy. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. 1789:xvii:311.
| How to Do Animal Rights - and Win the War on Animals. © Roger (Ben) Panaman, April 2008. All rights reserved. |