Animal Ethics
In this lecture…





Kant
Singer
Regan
Factory farming
Animal experimentation
Kant
 Many traditional western ethical
perspectives are human-centered.
 Kantian ethics, for example, is
anthropocentric in that it assigns
intrinsic value to human beings alone
and views nature as consisting of
objects for human use.
Kant
 According to Immanuel Kant, because
humans have intrinsic value, they must
be treated as ends in themselves.
 On the other hand, we can treat
nonhuman animals and other natural
objects as mere means or ‘natural
resources’ because they do not have any
intrinsic value.
Kant
 From Kant’s human-centered point of
view, humans have a moral duty only
towards one another.
 In Kant’s view, animal are mere objects
for human use because they are neither
rational nor autonomous, nor can they
understand duty or behave like moral
agents.
Kant
 In Kant’s view, appropriate human
conduct (morality) does not extend
beyond the human species.
 Kant argues that moral agents must be
self-conscious, rational, and capable of
making moral judgments. Since
nonhuman animals cannot reason, they
cannot be moral agents.
Kant
 According to Kant, while animals are
worthy of our moral concern, they
cannot be afforded any moral status in
their own right.
 The difference between humans and
animals implies that we have no direct
duties to animals. We have direct duties
only to humans.
Kant
 Kant: “So far as animals are concerned
we have no direct duties. Animals are
not self-conscious and there merely as a
means to an end. The end is man… Our
duties towards animals are merely
indirect duties towards humanity.”
Kant
 Our duties to animals are actually
indirect duties to other humans. The
moral treatment of animals is only a
means of cultivating moral treatment of
humans.
 In other words, we should not mistreat
animals because this may lead to
mistreatment of humans.
Kant
 Kant: “If a man shoots his dog because
the animal is no longer capable of
service, he does not fail in his duty to
the dog, for the dog cannot judge, but
his act is inhuman and damages in
himself that humanity which it is his
duty to show towards mankind.”
Kant
 Kant thought that it was wrong to
mistreat animals. Why? Because
harming animals would harden our
hearts, and so make it likely that we
would mistreat our fellow human
beings.
Kant
 For Kant, if it is morally right to treat
animals well, it is only because this
promotes kindness between persons.
 Animals should be treated well not
because they have intrinsic value, but
only because of the positive effects on
other humans.
Kant
 Why should killing animals tend to
brutalize a person and make him more
likely to harm or kill other people? Do
butchers commit more cruel acts
towards other humans?
Kant
 Counterargument [1]: Kant’s logic is
questionable because the reasoning he
employed was consequentialist. The
question we should ask is whether
cruelty to animals is intrinsically wrong
or whether it is wrong because of the
bad consequences it brings about.
Kant
 One can argue, from a Kantian point of
view, that if the very act of cruelty is
intrinsically wrong, we have a duty not
to do it. Such an action is not morally
justified whether the victim has moral
status or not.
Kant
 Counterargument [2]: The problem with
Kant’s view on animals is that it makes
rational self-consciousness the sole
criterion for being morally considerable.
But why should we think that rational
self-consciousness is the only thing of
moral importance?
Kant
 To be consistent, Kant would have to
agree that nonhuman animals that are
self-conscious (e.g. chimpanzees) have
moral status, and human beings who
are not self-conscious (e.g. babies) do
not have moral status.
Singer
 Utilitarianism is a form of
consequentialism because it evaluates
an action in terms of that action’s actual
or expected consequences, i.e. the
degree to which an action increases
well-being or satisfies interests.
Singer
 A utilitarian accepts two moral
principles: [1] everyone’s interest counts,
and similar interests must be counted
as having similar weight or importance,
and [2] an action is right if it brings
about the best balance of satisfaction
over dissatisfaction for everyone
affected by the outcome.
Singer
 Utilitarianism argues that the essence
of morality is to promote happiness and
eliminate suffering.
 From the standpoint of utilitarianism,
animals are capable of pleasure and
suffering, so they are morally
considerable in the same way that
human beings are.
Singer
 Utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer
challenges the view that there are
fundamental differences in the moral
status of human beings and non-human
animals.
 Singer asserts that many animals are
capable of suffering and therefore
warrant moral consideration.
Singer
 Singer maintains that ‘sentience’, the
capacity of feeling pleasure and pain, is
a sufficient condition for having
interests.
 A sentient animal can feel pain, and as
such it has an interest in not being
caused to suffer (from pain).
Singer
 A stone does not suffer when kicked,
and therefore has no interest in not
being kicked. In contrast, a mouse has
an interest in not being kicked because
it would suffer.
 Singer: “If a being suffers, there can be
no moral justification for refusing to
take that suffering into consideration.”
Singer
 Singer argues that there is no morally
justifiable way to exclude from moral
consideration non-humans or nonpersons who have sensations of pain.
 Any being that has an interest in not
suffering deserves to have that interest
taken into account.
Singer
 Singer argues that what makes racism
and sexism morally objectionable is
that a racist or sexist does not give equal
weight to the similar interests of
members of a different race or sex.
 He defines a speciesist as someone who
gives different weights to the similar
interests of humans and animals.
Singer
 Singer: “The racist gives greater weight
to the interests of members of his own
race, when there is a clash between their
interests and the interests of another
race. Similarly, the speciesist allows the
interests of his own species to override
the greater interests of members of
other species.”
Singer
 According to Singer, moral consideration
(or moral status) has nothing to do with
individual differences.
 Everyone whose interest can be affected
by our actions is equally worthy of our
moral concern, no matter how similar or
different they are from each other.
Singer
 Singer: “The essence of the Principle of
Equal Consideration of Interests is that
we give equal weight in our moral
deliberations to the like interests of all
those affected by our actions.”
Singer
 The principle of equal consideration of
interests is not a description of a fact,
but a prescription of how we should
treat others.
 Demands for equality cannot rest on
factual equality among people (or
animals), because no such equality
exists.
Singer
 However, to insist on giving equal
consideration to animal and human
interests is not to claim that animals
have the same interests as human
beings or that animals ought to be
treated in exactly the same way as
humans are treated.
Singer
 Equal consideration of interests often
imply different treatment for different
entities, depending on the specific
interests of the entities under
consideration.
 For example, it would be as absurd to
talk of a dog’s right to vote as to talk of a
man’s right to have an abortion.
Singer
 Similarly, because a pig has no interests
that would be served by an education,
whereas a child does, equal
consideration of interests will lead to
very different treatment of the pig and
the child.
Singer
 What a child and a pig have in common,
nevertheless, is an interest in avoiding
suffering.
 Thus, to the extent that animals are
capable of suffering, their interests
must be given equal consideration as
human interests when we make ethical
decisions, according to Singer.
Singer
 I might feel much more love for my dog
than for a strange child, but I might feel
morally obliged to feed the child before
I feed my dog.
 Are we morally justified in thinking that
human interests should weigh more
heavily than animal interests?
Singer
 Singer’s principle of equal
consideration of interests calls for the
immediate end to many of our current
practices that cause enormous pain and
suffering to animals such as factory
farming, animal experimentation and
hunting.
Singer
 Nevertheless, Singer does not oppose all
uses of animals. For example, if the
benefits of an experiment outweigh the
harms, using animals as test subjects in
such an experiment can be justified on
utilitarian grounds.
Regan
 Tom Regan disagrees with Singer’s
utilitarian program for animal
liberation, because he rejects
utilitarianism as lacking a notion of
intrinsic worth.
 Regan’s position is that animals and
humans should have equal rights
because of their equal intrinsic value.
Regan
 Regan is a deontologist, not a
utilitarian. He believes that actions are
intrinsically right or wrong regardless of
consequences.
 To defend animal rights is to claim that
certain ways of treating animals can
never be morally justified on utilitarian
grounds.
Regan
 To attribute rights to an individual is to
assert that the individual has some kind
of special moral dignity which entails
that there are certain things that cannot
justifiably be done to him/her/it for the
sake of benefit to others.
Regan
 If animals have rights, humans are not
justified in harming them for the sake
of benefits to humans, no matter how
great those benefits may be.
 We are, for example, prohibited from
injuring their bodies, taking their life,
or putting them at risk of serious harm.
Regan
 Regan argues that what is important for
moral consideration are not the
differences between humans and
animals but the similarities.
 Both humans and animals are what he
calls ‘subjects-of-a-life’; both equally
deserve moral consideration; and both
are entitled to a full set of rights.
Regan
 Many animals, according to Regan, are
‘subjects-of-a-life’ (or ‘experiencing
subjects of a life’, to be more precise) i.e.
conscious creatures having an
individual welfare that has importance
to them regardless of their usefulness
to others.
Regan
 Like humans, these animals possess
capacities for emotion, belief, desire
and memory, which allow them to exist
for purposes of their own.
 These animals do not exist for anyone
else. They are the subjects of their own
experience, subjects of their own lives.
Regan
 Regan, therefore, proposes that we
should treat these animals with the
same respect as we have for human
beings.
 They should be viewed as ends in
themselves rather than mere objects or
resources for use by humans.
Regan
 According to Regan, what is wrong with
mistreatment of animals is not the pain
or suffering caused, but “the system that
allows us to view animals as our
resources, here for us – to be eaten, or
surgically manipulated, or put in our
cross hairs for sport or money.”
Regan
 If a being is a subject-of-a-life, it can be
said to have ‘inherent value’.
 All beings with inherent value are
equally valuable and entitled to the
same rights. Their inherent value does
not depend on how useful they are to
others.
Regan
 ‘Inherent value’ is the value that all
conscious individuals (of any species)
possess regardless of their usefulness to
others.
 Any being that is a subject-of-a-life has
inherent worth. Thus, in Regan’s view, all
subjects-of-a-life are equally entitled to
the same rights and moral status.
Regan
 Kant’s error, in Regan’s view, was in
thinking that only human subjects were
ends in themselves.
 For Regan, to be a subject-of-a-life is to
be an end in itself. All subjects-of-a-life,
therefore, have the same basic rights
and dignity, and should be treated with
equal respect.
Regan
 To sum up, all subjects-of-a-life –
humans and nonhuman animals alike –
have inherent value, dignity and the
right to be treated with respect. As such,
it is morally unacceptable to treat them
merely as a means, or object for use by
others.
Regan
 For Regan, any practice that fails to
respect the rights of animals (e.g. eating
them, hunting them, experimenting on
them, or using them for entertainment)
is wrong, irrespective of human need,
context, or culture.
Regan
 Regan’s view entails that animals have
the same basic rights and the same
moral status as human beings.
 Thus, he argues for the abolition of [1]
animal agriculture, [2] commercial and
sport hunting, and [3] the use of
animals in science.
Regan
 Most of us agree that cruelty to animals
is wrong. But why is it wrong? Is it
because people who are cruel to animals
are more likely to be cruel to human
beings? Or is it because the animals
have a right against cruel treatment and
therefore we have a duty not to harm
them?
Factory farming
 The second half of the 20th century saw
the intensification of cattle breeding
which provoked a fierce debate.
 During the 1960s and 1970s, pressure
groups started to argue on behalf of the
interests of animals kept in factory
farms.
Factory farming
 In the United States alone, billions of
animals are killed each year for human
consumption.
 The majority of these are raised in
conditions in which their well-being is
systematically sacrificed in every way
that might reduce expenditures and
thereby maximize profits.
Factory farming
 The use of animals for food is the largest
direct cause of animal abuse and
suffering today. Factory-farmed animals
often experience an entire life of pain.
 From the standpoint of utilitarianism,
the enormous suffering caused by
factory farms cannot be justified by
human desire for meat.
Factory farming
 The principle of equal consideration of
interests, according to Peter Singer,
requires that we abstain from eating
and using factory-farmed products.
 Do you agree with Singer that we should
refrain from meat consumption?
Factory farming
 Consider this popular argument for
meat eating: It is morally acceptable for
nonhuman animals to kill and eat other
animals. Therefore, it is morally
acceptable for human beings to kill and
eat nonhuman animals.
Factory farming
 Counterargument [1]: What is morally
acceptable for animals may not be
morally acceptable for us. It is
implausible to look to animals for moral
guidance. Animals are not moral agents
– they cannot control their behaviour
through moral reasoning.
Factory farming
 Counterargument [2]: A carnivore’s
survival depends on eating other
animals. Our survival does not. With
rare exceptions, human beings can
survive perfectly well without eating
animal flesh. There are hundreds of
millions of vegetarians leading healthy
lives.
Factory farming
 Counterargument [3]: None of the
animals we routinely eat (chickens,
cows, pigs, sheep, ducks, etc.) are
carnivores. They do not eat other
animals.
Factory farming
 We have no nutritional need for animal
products. In fact, vegetarians are, on
average, healthier than those who eat
meat.
 There is no shortage of foods that we
can eat that do not require animals to
suffer unnecessarily in factory farms or
slaughterhouses.
Factory farming
 Almost all of us agree that we should
treat dogs and cats humanely. There are
few opponents, for instance, of current
anti-cruelty laws aimed at protecting
pets from abuse.
 How about applying anti-cruelty laws to
treatment of animals in factory farms?
Factory farming
 Do we believe that dogs and cats are so
different from pigs, cows and chickens?
Why do we think that pets deserve legal
protection from human abuse, while
animals in factory farms do not?
Factory farming
 What separates pets from the animals
we abuse in factory farms is physical
proximity.
 Our disregard for factory-farmed
animals persists simply because we do
not see them. Few people are aware of
the ways in which they are mistreated.
Factory farming
 The vast populations of cows, pigs and
chickens exist only because we raise
them for food.
 A world of vegetarians would be a world
without such animals because there
would be no economic reason to raise
them.
Factory farming
 What, if anything, is wrong with the
idea of breeding human babies as a
source of food?
 These babies would not exist at all if we
did not plan to use them like that, and
anyway they are not intelligent enough
to understand and object to what we are
doing.
Factory farming
 Those who think that doing so is wrong
would have to agree that breeding farm
animals for food is morally
objectionable, too, not only because of
the pain and suffering inflicted on the
animals but also because they are
treated as mere objects for our own
purposes.
Animal experimentation
 Medical research on animals has helped
to bring about treatment of diabetes,
cancer, stroke and heart ailments.
 For example, dogs were used in the
discovery of insulin and monkeys were
used in the development of a polio
vaccine.
Animal experimentation
 While some instances of animal
experimentation promise very great
benefits to human beings (and
occasionally, to animals as well) many
instances of experimentation on
animals do not produce benefits that
outweigh the harms they inflict.
Animal experimentation
 Many of these experiments are
unnecessary because alternative
methods of investigation are available,
or because they yield results that cannot
be reliably extrapolated to cases
involving human beings.
Animal experimentation
 The use of animals in biomedical
research is often unnecessary, as in
testing of cosmetics.
 There are alternatives that can supplant
animal testing, such as computer
modeling, animal tissue testing, genetic
research, and stem cell experimentation.
Animal experimentation
 Animal research is unreliable and
sometime counterproductive.
 For instance, the link between smoking
and lung cancer was discovered by the
British scientist Sir Richard Doll in the
1950s by means of a study of human lung
cancer patients in twenty London
hospitals.
Animal experimentation
 After Doll’s theory was published,
animal researchers tested it by trying to
reproduce the carcinogenic effects of
smoking in animals.
 Doll’s findings were dismissed because
those animal experiments failed to
demonstrate the link between tobacco
use and cancer.
Animal experimentation
 As it turned out, some of this animal
research was funded by tobacco
manufacturers.
 Doll’s important discovery was hindered
and delayed by animal research, thus
delaying the health warning to humans
and resulting in millions more
unnecessary deaths.
Animal experimentation
 The main approach to developing
medical drugs today consists of using
mouse models to test molecules. Every
year, billions of dollars are spent in drug
development by pharmaceutical
companies using this approach.
Animal experimentation
 One of the problems with this model of
drug development is the assumption
that the disease induced in mice is the
same as in humans.
 A recent large-scale study showed that
there was very poor correlation of gene
responses in the two species. This study
undermines the assumption that mice
are good models for human diseases.
Animal experimentation
 For experiments that are intended to
yield knowledge about human beings,
such as what medicines may benefit us,
or what substances may harm us, the
data obtained would be far more
reliable if the experimental subjects
were human beings rather than animals.
Animal experimentation
 According to the animal rights position,
the use of animals in experiments is a
clear violation of their rights – they are
being used as a mere means to some end.
 Thus, animal rights proponents are in
favor of the abolition of animal
experimentation.
Animal experimentation
 The dominant ethical position
worldwide today is that animal
experimentation should cause as little
suffering to animals as possible, and
that such tests should not be performed
unless they are necessary.
Animal experimentation
 Many animals are used in experiments
because they are so like us – this makes
them good models of human conditions
in medicine.
 But if these animals are so like us, why
do we treat them so differently?
Animal experimentation
 If we believe it is morally unacceptable
to use ‘marginal’ human beings (e.g.
infants or the mentally retarded) in
experiments, why is it permissible to
use animals of a similar mental or
psychological capability?