Module 10
模組10
Introduction to animal welfare ethics
動物福利倫理介紹
This module will enable you to
本模組將使您能夠
• Define ethics 了解倫理學的定義
• Understand why vets need ethics 了解獸醫為
何需要倫理
• Recognise different views of animals’ moral
status 認識動物道德地位之不同觀點
• Be aware of the main ethical theories and
how they relate to animals 認識主要的倫理理
論與它們與動物之間的關係
• Construct ethical arguments about animals 能
夠建構有關動物的倫理論述
What are ethics ?
何謂 “倫理學”?
• Ethics deal with what is good or bad, right or
wrong 倫理學是討論我們對於好壞、是非的價
值觀，以及我們該如何行為過日子
• Ethical theory is a branch of philosophy
倫理學是哲學的分支
• BUT ethics are a part of everyday life: 但倫理
學是每日生活的一部分：
– Our everyday actions impact on the interests
of others 我們每天的行為影響著他人的利益
Branches of Ethics 倫理學的分支
Personal Ethics
個人倫理
Professional Ethics
職業倫理
Societal Ethics
社會倫理
Ethical sceptics 1
倫理懷疑論1
Are ethics ‘just subjective’?
倫理很主觀?
• Wide agreement between different ethical systems and
cultures 大部分倫理與文化的大原則都類似
– ‘The golden rule’ found in many cultures 己所不欲勿
施於人(Do unto others as you would have done unto
yourself)
– Ethics as ‘glue’ holding societies together 倫理像 “膠
水”凝聚整個社會Indeed without a consensus within
any one society then moral chaos (混亂) might break
that society apart.
Ethical sceptics 2
倫理懷疑論2
Are ethics just preferences?
倫理僅僅是偏好嗎？
• A preference requires no rational defence 不用
理性辯護的偏好
• A preference is not binding for others 不彼此約
束的偏好
• The nature of moral justification 道德證成的本質
Ethical dilemmas 倫理的兩難
• Situations in which each possible course seems to be
morally wrong 無論採取哪一種可能之作法，在道德上都
是錯的。
• Not all ethical problems are dilemmas 並非所有的道德
難題都處於兩難
• Not all dilemmas are ethical dilemmas 並非所有的兩難
局面都是道德上的兩難
• Many dilemmas can often be solved by careful thought
許多兩難局面可透過審慎思考而獲得解決
?
Why do vets need ethics?
為何獸醫需要倫理？
• Vets have obligations to different parties so
ethical decisions are constantly faced 獸醫對
不同的族群有義務，以至於得經常面對倫理選
擇
• Ethics are the tools to make these decisions
well 倫理學是做出良好選擇的工具
• Enlightened self interest of the individual and
the profession 啟發個人自身的利益與職責
Why do vets need ethics?
為何獸醫需要倫理？
Only ethics
has the
answer !
唯有倫理學
有答案!
Other vets
Public
Patient
Farmer
Vet
The moral status of animals: Position 1
動物的倫理地位：可能的地位1
• Animals have no moral status 動物沒有倫理地位
– We have no duties towards them 我們對牠們沒有義
務
– E.g., “It is OK to beat the dog for fun” 例如，打狗沒
關係
do ‘pests’ like
rats/mice have any
moral status?害蟲
與有害動物是否有
任何道德地位？
The moral status of animals: Position 2
動物的倫理地位：可能的地位 2
• Animals have ‘instrumental’ value 動物有 “工具”價值
– We have indirect duties to them 人對動物有間接義務
– E.g., “Don’t beat the dog as you might upset the owner”
舉例: 不要打狗以免激怒飼主
…do experimental animals have
only instrumental value to humans?
…實驗動物是否僅有工具價值?
The moral status of animals: Position 3
動物的倫理地位：可能的地位3
• Animals have ‘intrinsic’ value 動物有內在價值
– We have direct duties to them 人類有直接義務
– E.g., “Don’t beat the dog as it would hurt the dog and
this matters! 舉例: 不要打狗因為會傷害狗,這很重要!
…do pets, like other family
members, have intrinsic value?
寵物是否像我們的家人一樣，有
內在價值?
Reasons for giving intrinsic moral value to
animals? 可否給動物內在價值?
Are others obliged to respect such interests?
我們是否不得不尊重這樣的利益?
Interests flow from these feelings
(e.g.) the interest in avoiding pain 利益來
自於這樣的感覺: 例如逃避痛的利益
If animals have a mental life and feelings
(e.g.) if they can feel pain
如果動物有身心的知覺(如可感覺到痛)
The capacity to feel 1
動物的感覺1
• ‘Sentience’ is the capacity to have
feelings “感知”是指感覺的能力
• These feelings are mental states such
as sensations or emotions 這些感覺是
心態，例如感覺與情緒
…if a dog is
sentient…
如果狗有感覺…
…and a plant is not…
…植物沒有…
then what about…
那關於…
?
The capacity to feel 2
動物的感覺2
• Mental states may be pleasant or
unpleasant 心理狀態可能是愉快或不愉快
…happy?
快樂?
…sad?
難過?
• There are other aspects of mental life
which may be important 心靈生活的其他面
向可能是重要的
Evidence for sentience 1
感知的證據 1
Behavioural studies in lab and field
經由實驗設計或田野試驗取得
…is this the behaviour of an animal that is in pain?
…圖中動物的行為可顯示疼痛?
Evidence for sentience 2
感知的證據 2
Evolution 演化
– Continuity
between
humans and
other animals
人類與其他動
物的關連
A common ancestor
which evolved feelings
that descendant
species share
後代物種分享同一祖先演
化來的感覺
Evidence for sentience 3
感知的證據 3
Physiology and Anatomy 生理學與解剖學
Similarities with humans, especially
neurophysiology and neuroanatomy
與人類相似，尤其是神經生理學與神經解剖學
Sceptical arguments against animal moral status
反對動物道德地位之懷疑論述
• Only members of species Homo sapiens have
moral status: ‘speciesism’ 僅人類有道德地位--這是 “物種主義” 的看法
• Animals cannot reciprocate 動物不懂回饋
– Can you have rights without responsibilities?
是否可以有權無責?
– BUT if children have moral status, why not
animals ? 但若幼兒有道德地位, 那動物為何
不行?
Sceptical arguments against animal
consciousness 1
反對動物意識之懷疑論述1
• Animals lack souls: animals as machines
動物無靈魂:動物是機械
• Is language necessary for consciousness?
語言是意識所必須的嗎?
– Can primates have language? 靈長類是否有
語言能力?
– Does this confuse awareness with selfawareness? 這是否會將 [意識] 誤認為 [自我
意識] ?
Sceptical arguments against animal
consciousness 2
反對動物意識之懷疑論述2
• Are higher intellectual capacities necessary for
consciousness? 是否較高的智慧是意識所需要的?
–Ability to reason 理性能力
–Consciousness versus self awareness 意識與
自我意識
–Does reason result in greater potential to
suffer? 是否理性會造成更強的受苦潛力?
• Vested human interests 被賦予的人類利益
Important concepts in animal ethics
動物倫理的重要觀念
• Anthropomorphism 擬人化
– Attribution of human characteristics to
an animal 將人的特質轉至動物
• Speciesism 物種主義
– Discrimination against animals on basis
of species 在物種的基礎上歧視動物
Equal consideration of interests
利益的平等考量
• Demands equal treatment where interests
are the same 要求在相同利益的情況下給
予平等的對待
Approaches to animal ethics: utilitarianism
效益主義
• Emphasises consequences of actions 強調事件結果
• Seeks to maximise good outcomes 追求最好的結果
– ‘The greatest good for the greatest number’
最大數目的最大善
• Some problems 困難
– Breaking rules for good consequences 因結果善
而破壞某些倫理原則
– How do we make the calculation? 如何衡量?
Peter Singer’s utilitarianism
彼得辛格之效益主義
• Aim to maximise the
satisfaction of preferences of
all species 目標是所有物種的
偏好得到最大化的滿足
• Major animal interests versus
minor human interests
多數動物之利益 versus 少數人
類之利益
Approaches to animal ethics:
duty based ethics 義務論
‘Deontology’ “義務論”
– From the Greek ‘deontos’ meaning ‘obligation’
來源自希臘字deontos, 意指 [義務]
– Emphasis on principles guiding behaviour
rather than outcomes 強調以原則而非結果來
指導行為
– For example, treat people as ends, not as
means to other ends 例如: 把人當最終目標對
待, 而非最終目標之工具[手段]
Tom Regan’s deontology:
animal rights 湯姆雷根的義務論：動物權
• Animal rights – a form of deontological theory
動物權－義務論的形式
• Tom Regan argues that animals have inherent
value 湯姆雷根主張動物有內在價值
• Rights flow from this inherent value 從內在價值
湧出與生俱來的道德權利
• This view demands abolition of animal
farming and experimentation 此觀點要求中止動
物農場與實驗動物
Approaches to animal ethics: hybrid views
深層動物倫理學：混合式觀點
• Different theories sometimes conflict 不同之理論
有時會有衝突
• Often people combine parts from different
theories 人常會合併不同理論的不同部分
• Combination of utilitarianism and rights - there
are certain practices which may not be justifiable
by any consequences 將效益主義與權利合併--某些實務的作法，可能無法由任何結果予以認定
其合宜性。
Approaches to animal ethics:
an ethical matrix 深層動物倫理學：道德矩陣
THEORY or
PRINCIPLE
理論或原則
Animal
動物
Consumer
消費者
Producer
生產者
Utilitarianism
效益主義
Welfare
動物福利
Availability of safe
food
安全食品供應
Producer income and
working conditions
生產者收入與工作環
境
Autonomy
自主化
Behavioural
Freedom
行為自由
Freedom of choice
(food labelling?)
選擇之自由(食品標
示)
Freedom of choice to
adopt or not adopt
certain practices
靠自由選擇決定(不)接
受某些作法
Fairness or
Justice
公平或正義
Equal
consideration
of interests?
利益的平等考量
Universally
affordable food?
可全面接受的價格?
Fair trade?
公平交易?
Animal rights VERSUS animal welfare?
動物權與動物福利是否對立?
• Conflicting ideals? 彼此衝突?
• Welfare 動物福利
– Seen as utilitarian avoidance of unnecessary
suffering and promotion of humane treatment
動物福利是效益性的避免不必要的受苦，與推
動人道處理
• Rights 動物權
– Seen as absolute, overcoming any
consequences 動物權是絕對的,不計任何效益
性結果
Animal rights AND welfare?
動物權與動物福利?
• Rights and welfare not necessarily
opposed
動物權與動物福利二者不一定對立
• Animal Welfare Science does not imply
acceptance of all customary practices
動物福利科學並沒有接受一切既有的做法
• ‘New Welfarism’ - welfare short term and
rights long term 新動物福利主義: 短期動物
福利長期動物權
Other philosophical positions (Taylor
2003) 其它哲學立場 (泰勒2003)
• Care ethic
關懷倫理學
• Contractarian
ethics
契約倫理學
• Stewardship
經營倫理學
Popular misunderstanding of animal
rights 對動物權的普遍誤解
• Animal rights 動物權
– School of philosophical thought 哲學思想的一個支派
– Used by the media and the public to mean “animal
liberation” 媒體與大眾用來指 “動物解放”
• Animal liberation (Taylor 2003) 動物解放 (泰勒 2003)
– A popular movement 普及的運動
– May use extreme methods, occasionally violent 可能
採取極端的手段，偶爾訴諸暴力
Conclusions 結論
• Vets make ethical decisions all the time. Therefore
they need to know about ethics in order to make
these decisions well 獸醫隨時都在做倫理決定，故需
要了解倫理學以做出優質決定。
• There are arguments for granting animals some form
of moral worth 有一些論述是賦予動物某些形式之道
德價值。
• There are various ethical theories which attempt to
address the issues of animals and their treatment by
humans 有不同之倫理學理論試圖致力於動物議題，
並提出由人類處置之方式。
Further Reading
• ASCIONE, F.R. & ARKOW, P., 1999: Child abuse, Domestic
Violence and Animal Abuse. Purdue University Press. West
Lafayette
• CAVALIERI, P., ADAMS, D. & GOODALL, J., 1995: The Great
Ape Project: Equality Beyond Humanity. St. Martin's Press.
• DAWKINS, M.S., 1993: Through Our Eyes Only? The Search
for Animal Consciousness. W.H. Freeman.
• HUGHES, B.O. and BLACK, A.J., 1973: The preferences of
domestic hens for different types of battery cage floor. British
Poultry Science 14, 615-619.
• LEAHY, M.P.T., 1991: Against Liberation: Putting Animals in
Perspective. Routledge.
• MEPHAM, B., 1996: Food Ethics. Routledge
Further Reading
• REGAN, T, 1984: The Case for Animal Rights. Routledge. London.
• REGAN, T., 2005 in In Defence of Animals: The Second Wave
(Ed. Singer). Blackwell Publishing.
• ROLLIN, B., 2006: An Introduction to Veterinary Medical Ethics:
Theory and Cases. 2nd edition. Blackwell, Oxford.
• SCRUTON, R., 1996: Animal Rights and Wrongs. Demos. ISBN 1
898309 82 5.
• SINGER, P., 2001 Animal Liberation. 3rd Edition. Harper Collins:
London
• TANNENBAUM, J., 1995: Veterinary Ethics: Animal Welfare,
Client Relations, Competition and Collegiality. 2nd Edition. Mosby.
• TAYLOR A. 2003: Animals and Ethics: an overview of the
philosophical debate . Broadview Press: Peterborough, Canada
• WEMELSFELDER F 1997: The scientific validity of subjective
concepts in models of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour
Science 53: 75-88
Further reading
• Armstrong, S, Botzler R (Eds) 2003 The Animal Ethics Reader
Routledge
• Francione G. 1996 Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the
Animal Rights Movement. Philadelphia: Temple University Press,
• Francione G. 1995 Animals, Property and the Law (Ethics and
Action). Philadelphia: Temple University Press
• Garner R. 2005 Animal Ethics Oxford: Blackwell
• Goodwin B. (1999). Reclaiming a life of quality. Journal of
Consciousness studies. 6(11-12): 229-235(7).
• Singer P 2000. Ethics into Action: Henry Spira and the Animal
Rights Movement. New York: Rowan and Littlefield.
• Spiegel M 1997 The Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal
Slavery. New York: Institute for the Development of Earth
Awareness.
Further reading
• Turner J, d’Silva J (Eds) 2006 Animals, Ethics and Trade: The
Challenge of Animal Sentience. Earthscan
• Warren MA 2007. Ethics and Animals. Prentice Hall
• Wemelsfelder F, Lawrence AB 2001. Qualitative Assessment of
Animal Behaviour as an On-Farm Welfare-monitoring Tool. Acta
Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A - Animal Science 51(30): 21-25
• Midgley M 1983. Animals and Why They Matter. University of
Georgia Press, US
• Preece R, Chamberlain L. 1993. Animal Welfare and Human Values.
Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier Press.