{"id":2054,"date":"2016-06-20T09:19:52","date_gmt":"2016-06-19T23:19:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/theveterinarian.com.au\/?p=2054"},"modified":"2016-06-28T09:20:39","modified_gmt":"2016-06-27T23:20:39","slug":"mans-dominion-and-the-worth-of-animals","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/theveterinarian.com.au\/?p=2054","title":{"rendered":"Vet Ethics: Man\u2019s dominion and the worth of animals"},"content":{"rendered":"In his book Animal Welfare: A Cool Eye Towards Eden<\/i>, the well-known welfare scientist John Webster criticises the contribution of moral philosophy to the question of the treatment of animals and their welfare. Webster writes:\r\n
\r\n

\u201cThe moral philosophy approach to animal welfare \u2013 i.e. based upon our thoughts and values, not theirs \u2013 tends to generate broad, bold (and careless) conclusions such as \u2018Man has no right to cause any animal to suffer\u2019\u201d. <\/i><\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

He gives just two examples of such \u201cmoral philosophy\u201d: A book by Andrew Lindsay, a Christian author who has attempted to interpret the meaning of \u201cMan\u2019s Dominion\u201d in a way favourable to animal rights; and the famous book Animal Liberation<\/i> by Peter Singer. While admitting that he admires and shares a passion for animal welfare with these authors, and is also well disposed towards aspects of Singer\u2019s utilitarian philosophy, Webster claims that their work is not really helpful. In fact, their work is all too easily debased into empty or wrong-headed slogans. Webster holds a view that \u201cMan\u201d rightly and necessarily has \u201cDominion\u201d over the animals. He broadly favours traditional forms of animal use, like animal agriculture, so long as they treat animals humanely and fairly.<\/p>\r\nAlthough Webster\u2019s criticisms of philosophy are brief and undeveloped, they are useful to us for thinking about the place of philosophy and ethics in debates over animal treatment and welfare. Most of Webster\u2019s book is about animal science, welfare, and advocacy (and worth reading on this score). He thinks that this approach – in contrast with the \u201cself-indulgent moralizing\u201d of moral philosophy – is a \u201cconstructive\u201d, \u201cpractical\u201d, and \u201crealistic\u201d approach to important problems of \u201cMan\u2019s Dominion\u201d.\r\n\r\nWebster\u2019s dim picture of moral philosophy might be corrected by noting the following points:\r\n

1. Moral philosophy, or ethics, does not lead automatically<\/i> to any particular position on animals. Interestingly, many of those who study animal ethics have indeed come to more \u201canimal-friendly\u201d views. However, moral philosophy necessarily requires us to think independently and rigorously about the nature of ethics and its practical implications. This could<\/i> lead to an acceptance of animal rights, or to a rejection of them.<\/p>\r\n

Philosophy is light years away from empty or kneejerk \u201cslogans\u201d about animals and humans. Moreover, the very meaning<\/i> of \u201crights\u201d is something that requires examination. For some people, animal rights entail a rejection of many or most forms of animal use. For others, animal rights involve more of a case-by-case<\/i> approach.<\/p>\r\nPeter Singer argues that a properly thought-out utilitarianism opposes many industrial farming processes due to the animal suffering they cause, but is open to some kinds of animal experimentation. That is because utilitarianism \u2013 which Webster says he finds very helpful and practical \u2013 tells us to impartially and equally count similar interests, regardless of the type of being to whom those interests belong. As utilitarians might say, \u201cpain is pain\u201d \u2013 or, more broadly, \u201cwelfare is welfare\u201d, no matter whose welfare it is. But, of course, many philosophers are critical of utilitarianism. Again, philosophy requires thinking hard and impartially about things that matter, not blindly endorsing any particular point of view.\r\n\r\n2. On the other hand, Webster thinks that moral philosophy which talks about animal rights and animal consent tends to ignore the \u201cindividuals whose rights and whose consent are under discussion\u201d and whose perspectives are therefore \u201cnot allowed to contribute to the argument\u201d. In contrast, animal welfare advocates like himself do investigate and count the animals\u2019 own point of view, including what animals feel and prefer.\r\n\r\nIt is well worth appreciating the fact that animal welfare science represents a revolution in the way animals are studied. Welfare science investigates animal sentience and cognition, not just at aspects like physiology, pathology, function, and health. Its motivation is to inform our ethical decisions about the treatment of animals.\r\n\r\nYet the endeavour to understand animals\u2019 inner lives is not opposed by moral philosophy. Animal ethics has sought to pay more attention to animal feeling and cognition. Webster quotes with approval that famous utilitarian philosophy, Jeremy Bentham, who long ago said that the important question is not whether animals can talk, but whether they can suffer. Philosophy and welfare science can work together on our moral relations to animals.\r\n\r\n3. Moral philosophy is also not inherently opposed to what is practical, realistic, or constructive. Philosophers are fond of saying that \u201cought implies can\u201d – meaning that we can only be held morally accountable for actions which are achievable, not for actions which are impossible. And many ethical approaches can deliver quite clear practical recommendations (which obviously does not mean that they can give us the kinds of details that animal welfare science investigates).\r\n\r\nAt the same time, no-one has a monopoly on judging what is realistic or practical. That is, what we see as realistic and practical can depend to some degree on our own moral points of view. Interestingly, it has been philosophy itself that has partly given rise to the circumstances in which people like Webster judge what is constructive, practical, and realistic.\r\n\r\nTake the idea of \u201cMan\u2019s Dominion\u201d that Webster favours. This idea, of course, emerged historically some two thousand-plus years ago from the religions of Judaism and Christianity. But the idea was given form and intellectual grounding by the enormously influential works of ancient Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle.\r\n\r\nLater, the moral idea of Man\u2019s Dominion received powerful support from the seminal writings of the Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant argued that human beings have an incomparable dignity and worth. This philosophical view has had major effects on Western culture, including international law. Kant also taught that animals have no moral worth at all. The latter view is something that many philosophers, welfare scientists, and advocates have started to oppose.\r\n\r\nSIMON COGHLAN<\/strong>\r\n\r\nDo you have an ethical query you\u2019d like Simon to consider? A question you\u2019d like to pose? Email us at editor@vetmag.com.au.<\/i>\r\n\r\n<\/a>\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n ","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In his book Animal Welfare: A Cool Eye Towards Eden, the well-known welfare scientist John Webster criticises the contribution of moral philosophy to the question of the treatment of animals and their welfare. Webster writes: \u201cThe moral philosophy approach to animal welfare \u2013 i.e. based upon our thoughts and values, not theirs \u2013 tends to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[82],"tags":[306,85,1608,307,312],"class_list":["post-2054","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-opinion","tag-ethics","tag-opinion-2","tag-philosophy","tag-simon-coghlan","tag-vet-ethics"],"rise-blocks_total_comments":0,"rise-blocks_categories":[{"term_id":82,"name":"Opinion","slug":"opinion","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":83,"taxonomy":"category","description":"","parent":0,"count":94,"filter":"raw","cat_ID":82,"category_count":94,"category_description":"","cat_name":"Opinion","category_nicename":"opinion","category_parent":0}],"rise-blocks_excerpt":"In his book Animal Welfare: A Cool Eye Towards Eden, the well-known welfare scientist John Webster criticises the contribution of moral philosophy to the question of the treatment of animals and their welfare. Webster writes: \u201cThe moral philosophy approach to animal welfare \u2013 i.e. based upon our thoughts and values, not theirs \u2013 tends to generate broad, bold (and careless)..","blog_post_layout_featured_media_urls":{"thumbnail":"","full":""},"categories_names":{"82":{"name":"Opinion","link":"https:\/\/theveterinarian.com.au\/?cat=82"}},"tags_names":{"306":{"name":"ethics","link":"https:\/\/theveterinarian.com.au\/?tag=ethics"},"85":{"name":"opinion","link":"https:\/\/theveterinarian.com.au\/?tag=opinion-2"},"1608":{"name":"philosophy","link":"https:\/\/theveterinarian.com.au\/?tag=philosophy"},"307":{"name":"Simon Coghlan","link":"https:\/\/theveterinarian.com.au\/?tag=simon-coghlan"},"312":{"name":"Vet Ethics","link":"https:\/\/theveterinarian.com.au\/?tag=vet-ethics"}},"comments_number":"0","wpmagazine_modules_lite_featured_media_urls":{"thumbnail":"","cvmm-medium":"","cvmm-medium-plus":"","cvmm-portrait":"","cvmm-medium-square":"","cvmm-large":"","cvmm-small":"","full":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/theveterinarian.com.au\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2054","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/theveterinarian.com.au\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/theveterinarian.com.au\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theveterinarian.com.au\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theveterinarian.com.au\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2054"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/theveterinarian.com.au\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2054\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2058,"href":"https:\/\/theveterinarian.com.au\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2054\/revisions\/2058"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/theveterinarian.com.au\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2054"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theveterinarian.com.au\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2054"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/theveterinarian.com.au\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2054"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}