Animal Welfare Ethical

UNIT 21 ANIMAL WELFARE ETHICAL Theories-1

THEORIES-2

Structure
21.1 Learning Outcomes
21.2 Introduction
21.3 Deontological approaches
21.3.1 Animal Rights View
21.3.2 Case study 1: Farming Chickens for Meat
21.3.3 Case study 2: The Laboratory Rat
21.4 Virtue Ethics
21.4.1 Relational Ethics
21.4.2 Case study 1: The Stray Dog
21.4.3 Case study 2: The Rabbit
21.5 Practical Ethical Decision-making
21.6 Let Us Sum Up
21.7 Keywords
21.8 Bibliography and Further Reading
21.9 Self Assessment Exercises
21.10 Answers/Hints to Check Your Progress

21.1 LEARNING OUTCOMES

a) Knowledge and Understanding: After studying this Unit you will be
able to:
Explain the difference between consequential and deontological
ethical views
Understand the outcomes of deontological ethical views
b) Practical and Professional Skills: After studying this Unit you will be
able to:
Apply ethical reasoning to animal welfare issues

21.2 INTRODUCTION
In the last Unit we discussed consequential ethical approaches and understood
how these were related to the outcomes of our actions, rather than what we actually
do. In these approaches the ends are seen to justify the means and the main aim
is to ensure that a good outcome if achieved from our decision-making. However,
even within this framework, there are several schools of thought about how this
can be applied and, as we investigated with a series of case studies, these can
lead to different thinking and outcomes for animals depending on which ethical
view we apply.

183
Ethics and Animal Welfare In this Unit we will continue to discuss differing ethical approaches but we will
now focus on entirely different ethical approaches that are not focused on the
outcomes or consequences of actions, that of deontological ethical views and
virtue ethics. As before, we will consider how these can have impacts on animal
welfare and our use of animals through looking at specific case studies.

21.3 DEONTOLOGICAL APPROACHES

Unlike consequentialism, deontological ethics are concerned with what people
do, not the consequences of their actions. The key principles are:
1) Do the right thing because it is the right thing to do
2) Avoid doing wrong things because they are wrong.
This philosophical position believes that you cannot justify an immoral action
by showing that it produced good consequences (whereas consequentialism would
argue there is no such thing as a moral or immoral action). Thus, people have a
duty to act according to the rights and wrongs of the act, regardless of the
consequences. This view is most famously associated with the 18th Century
philosopher Immanuel Kant, who believed that it was not morally acceptable to
tell a lie, even if this would save someone from murder (we used as an example
in Unit 20). So, in comparison to Consequentialists who would consider what
things are good and then identify the right actions to achieve that, Deontologists
would first consider the right actions and then proceed from there (Box 21.1).

Box 21.1: Deontology Theory

Deontology is an ethical theory that states that the morality of an action should
be based on whether the action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules,
rather than based on the consequences of the action.

Deontology, or duty-based ethics, can have several good points:

It emphasizes respect and can provide the basis for human rights or other
rights (as we will discuss in section 21.3.1), and thus the rights of a single
individual are given due regard even if those are at odds with the interests of
a larger group.
It also state that some acts are always wrong, and for these acts the ends can
never justify the means that might achieve them. From an animal use point
of view we might feel that it is never acceptable to carry out a procedure on
some types of living animal (such as a great ape) that will cause persistent
and untreatable pain, regardless of the good to human medicine or health
that may ensue (as is present in the laws of some countries, but note that not
all people might agree).
It can provide certainty, as actions are always the same because they are not
reliant on predicting future outcomes.
It also deal with intentions and motives of the actor. For example, accidentally
causing an injury to an animal would be acceptable in deontological ethics
as the act was not intended, whereas it may not be from a consequentialism
view since the outcome harmed the animal.

184
However, deontological ethical views may also have a number of bad points: Animal Welfare Ethical
Theories-2
It sets absolute rules, whereas not all cases may fit under these rules and that
can make it difficult to implement.
In addition, applying deontological rules might make the world a less good
place, because it is focused only on the acts and not on the outcomes, which
could reduce overall happiness in the world (not lying to a would-be murderer
for example that leads to the killing of an innocent person).
As we have already discussed, often there are ethical dilemmas in animal
use that are not simple, and it can sometimes be hard to reconcile conflicting
duties, for example where our duty to an animal may conflict with the duty
to the animal’s owner, or where to treat one animal that is sick (which might
be the right things to do) might impact negatively on the other animals in a
group.

Kantian duty-based ethics (named after Kant as described above) can be

uncompromising and are based on an idealized but perhaps unachievable view
of every human behaving in an entirely rational manner. Kant developed what
he called ‘The Categorical Imperative’, which states that one should always act
in such a way that it could be applied to everyone in the same situation. So, if we
are not willing for the same ethical rule to be applied to us, then we cannot apply
this rule to another situation.

Example: If considering to break a promise we have made to someone, we should

consider if we are happy with others breaking promises they have made to us. If
we are not we should then conclude that it is not morally acceptable for us to
behave in this way. In addition, the ethical rule that we are claiming to follow
must be applicable universally, otherwise it is not a valid rule. So following the
same line of thinking in our example above, if we agree that it is ok for us to
break a promise then it must be so that all promises can be broken, and thus
promises have no value anymore. This rule then becomes not a valid moral rule
(that it is ok to break promises) and this can guide our moral thinking. Because
Kantian ethics can seem difficult and uncompromising, more recent variations
on duty-based ethics, put forward by Sir David Ross (and so called Rossian
duty-based ethics), suggest that there might be two kinds of duties:
Prima facie duties – which are self-evident and obvious duties or
responsibilities
Actual duties – what we should do based on the balance of these
responsibilities
How we determine what is the right thing to do, and what our duties are, and to
whom, are still open to discussion, as with other ethical views and these might
be applied in real-life situations in regard to our use of animals will be discussed
next.

21.3.1 Animal Rights View

Defenders of animal rights believe that there are fixed ethical rules that always
apply to and limit our treatment of animals, as we have discussed above. These
suggest that there are things that are just not ethical to do to animals, which must
be prohibited. Although this applies to all views of animal rights, what rights
185
Ethics and Animal Welfare animals should have can vary from person to person, and thus the animal rights
view can cover a range of differing views of animal treatment and use. At the
milder end of this view, we might consider it to be the right of animals to be
‘treated with respect’ or ‘treated humanely’. This would consider an animal’s
rights to have been respected if we do not carry out anything to an animal that
was an avoidable harm, but might allow livestock farming and use of animals in
experiments as long as every step was taken to avoid suffering or harm. At the
other end of the spectrum would be more radical views that might consider that
an animal should have rights that are just like human rights. Holders of this view
would contend that animals have the right not to be killed for human benefit
(except in self-defence) and thus this view would be incompatible with farming
of animals for meat and the use of animals in research and experimentation.

One of the best known proponents of these views is the American Philosopher,
Tom Regan, who published ‘The Case for Animal Rights’ in 1983. Here he argues
that at least some non-human animals have moral rights, because they are
‘subjects-of-a-life’, where ‘…they have beliefs and desires: perception, memory
and a sense of the future, including their own future: an emotional life together
with feelings of pleasure and pain; preference- and welfare-interests; the ability
to initiate action in pursuit of their desires and goals; a psychological identity
over time and an individual welfare in the sense that their experiential life fares
well or ill for them…’ (Tom Regan, 1983, The Case for Animal Rights, p243.).

We will now consider how holding this ethical view might influence our views
on the acceptable treatment of animals by looking at two case studies or scenarios.

21.3.2 Case Study 1: Farming Chickens for Meat

Poultry are widely farmed for meat production, typically using fast growing strains
of chickens, and are housed in large barns, often at very high stocking density.
Chickens are provided usually with a continual supply of food and water, and
reared on sawdust or other litter. Chickens may suffer from leg and bone weakness
that makes it difficult for them to walk easily as they age, and may experience
hock, foot or chest burns from coming into prolonged contact with contaminated
litter. Chickens in these systems may also be kept at low light intensities and be
given little to do that allows them to express natural chicken behaviour, such as
scratching, dust-bathing and roosting. Proponents of animal rights would reject
this intensive housing system, regardless of whether they are radical or support
a milder form of animal rights views, considering that the chicken is not treated
with respect, that its right to be protected from avoidable harm has not been met.
In intensive systems, often the whole flock is considered together, rather than
the individual, and the birds can experience pain, suffering and distress. This
might lead to a view that it is not ethically acceptable to eat chicken meat produced
under these conditions.

Supporters of a milder form of animal rights might take what could be considered
a ‘welfarist’ view and if the system could improved by various interventions
(such as: using slower growing chickens that do not suffer from leg weakness;
allowing outdoor access, natural lighting and environmental enrichments to meet
chicken needs; ensuring a humane and painless capture and slaughter process
etc.), then this could be considered to be treating the chicken with respect and
would make meat consumption ethically acceptable. However, more radical
186 supporters of animal rights would consider that it is never acceptable to eat a
chicken, as this would violate the bird’s right to life, and therefore no chicken Animal Welfare Ethical
Theories-2
production facility, regardless of how hard it might try to improve welfare, would
be ethically acceptable.

21.3.3 Case Study 2: The Laboratory Rat

Millions of rats and mice are used in experimental laboratories around the world.
They are usually bred in specific facilities to meet laboratory requirements and
are housed, often singly, in relatively barren housing, providing food, water and
limited bedding only. Animals are usually kept in racks in a room housing large
numbers of animals housed above, alongside or below, often on a fixed lighting
schedule of light and dark and with closely controlled environmental parameters.
Animals can be used in a vast array of studies including such things as
investigations of psychological responses, behavioural studies, drug trials, and
fundamental studies to understand the basis of human diseases. Some, but not
all, of these studies may involve fear, pain or distress to the animal involved,
although end points are usually included in the study that state at what level of
animal suffering or dysfunction a study must end.

To supporters of animal rights this use of animals is not acceptable, regardless of

any potential benefits to humans or animals that might ultimately accrue from
the studies. Here this is markedly different to utilitarian or consequentialism in
that the outcomes, the benefits, can never be taken as a justification for the harm
that the animal might experience. The rights, and the inherent value of the animal,
has not been respected and the use of animals in this way cannot be allowed. To
those at the milder end of the spectrum of rights, it might be possible for very
limited studies to be carried out, perhaps some behavioural studies using positive
reinforcement, if the animals can be housed in such a way that they are treated
with respect and humanity (such as group housing with enrichment and they are
re-homed at the end of the study). But, in general, animal experimentation is
incompatible with a belief in animal rights.
Check Your Progress 1
Note: a) Use the spaces given below for your answers.
b) Check your answer with those given at the end of the unit.
1) What is Deontology ethical theory?
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
2) How is the deontological ethical view different from consequentialism?
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
187
Ethics and Animal Welfare 3) What do you understand by the ‘Categorical Imperative?’
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
4) What is the difference between prima facie and actual duties?
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
5) What are the key features of animal rights view?
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................

21.4 VIRTUE ETHICS

Virtue ethics has arisen from ancient Greek philosophy, and is particularly
attributed to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. The focus is on the character of the
individual, and that morality arises from intrinsic values. Different schools of
philosophy have suggested different attributes that make up a virtuous person –
for example, Plato suggested the cardinal virtues of wisdom, justice, fortitude
and temperance, whereas Socrates argued that virtue is knowledge. Aristotle
listed many more virtues, including courage, magnanimity, truthfulness and
friendliness as virtues, and included emotional virtues as well as more intellectual
virtues. Critics have suggested that virtue ethics are culturally relative, since
different people and societies may have different opinions on what constitutes
virtue. Others argue that virtues should arise from the community where virtue
is to be practiced and therefore this is a strength of virtue ethics.

With the rise of utilitarianism and deontology, virtue ethics, as the third main
framework, has receded as a key area of ethics, although there are still
contemporary virtue ethicists who would argue for its relevance. Detractors have
suggested that virtue ethics can, in fact, be subsumed as part of the other two
areas. Deontology contains notions of virtue in understanding what are duties
and rights, and utilitarianism also contains key aspects of virtue ethics.
Eudaimonia, as we discussed briefly in Unit 20, is the concept of human
flourishing or happiness, and can be seen as the state of a virtuous person,
188
achieving happiness or flourishing by pursuing a virtuous life, or as an end in Animal Welfare Ethical
Theories-2
weighing up the costs and benefits as part of utilitarian approaches. Virtue ethics
can be considered to differ from both deontology and utilitarianism as its focus
is mainly on being a particular type of person rather than acting in a particular
way. It can be linked to both other ethical approaches, however, through happiness
and how this can be achieved, through being virtuous, acting in a specific way to
increase happiness, or aiming to increase the overall amount of happiness.

Thus, in our response to, and decision-making about, animals, this ethical view
argues we should behave in a caring, generous and honest way not because of
the outcomes for the animals, or because of the rights of the animal, but because
this is what makes a caring and virtuous person. Consideration of our attitudes,
and those that underlie use and abuse of animals, can lead us to make judgements
about what is ethical or not in our treatment of animals. This is different to either
of the other two considerations of animal treatment (deontology or utilitarianism)
as it does not permit anything to be done to animals as long as interests are
maximized, and nor does it prohibit any use of animals if there are times when
the harming of some animals may prevent a moral catastrophe. Instead, virtue
ethics can be used to take into account the context-dependent situations, in which
human-animal relationships are usually found.

21.4.1 Relational Ethics

Relational ethical views are an example of context-dependent ethical approaches,
in which there are not simply rules that must be used at all times, rather the
approach is modified by the context in which they are practiced. For relational
ethics, this argues that it is the importance of the relationship, in this case between
ourselves and the animal, which is relevant to their treatment. Put simply, this
means that where a relationship between an animal and a person already exists
(such as between a shepherd and the flock), then special ethical limits on the
treatment of the animal exists. Where we have domesticated animals that are
dependent on our care, then we have an ethical duty to provide care to them, in a
way that we may not to wild animals. For example, the shepherd should provide
food and medical care for the flock of sheep under their care, but has no moral
duty to provide food or medicines to wild sheep.

Relational ethical views might go further than this though. Because the key idea
is that there are value in close relationships, they encourage respect and can
provide a vehicle for improved virtue or eudaimonia, this suggests that close
relationships should be encouraged. This is because they have value in themselves,
where both the person and the animal may benefit and flourish, because the
closeness of the relationship leads to improved quality of care for the animal,
and improved well-being for the person.

Let us consider some case studies to help to illustrate this view.

21.4.2 Case Study 1: The Stray Dog

In many countries unowned, or free-roaming, stray dogs live on the streets in
close contact with humans. Dogs are opportunistic and adaptable creatures, and
where food resources are made readily available by poor human management of
waste, then dog populations will increase. These dogs can have a good quality of
life in some respects, as they are free to engage in natural behaviour and can
189
Ethics and Animal Welfare make choices about their own lives and wants. However, it is a life of high risk
and they may suffer from diseases that cause pain, discomfort and suffering,
such as mange, and are at risk of injury and accident. In some places, stray dogs
might be considered ‘community dogs’ where they have no specific owners but
the community cooperates to provide food, water, shelter and basic care for the
dogs. In the same environment, we might find owned dogs, which live more
closely with a single person or family. The relational ethical view would consider
that the owned dogs are the moral responsibility of the people or family with
whom they live, and this animal should therefore be treated better than the street-
living dogs. Community dogs also have a closer relationship with people in the
community, although this may be lesser than the owned dog, and therefore there
is a moral relationship that must be upheld for these dogs too. In the same way as
it would be unacceptable for the owners to beat or starve their dog, then the
community dog should also enjoy a better degree of care than other stray dogs,
because of the relationship with the community. Coincidentally, the community
then will also enjoy a better life with the dogs, through a more harmonious
relationship with the dogs and a reduced threat of zoonotic disease. Street dogs
that have no such relationships with people may not be the moral responsibility
of any one person, and therefore may be treated worse than either owned or
community dogs.

21.4.3 Case study 2: The Rabbit

We already introduced the moral conundrum of the rabbit in an earlier Unit.
Rabbits can be kept as pets in many countries, where like all pets there is a moral
duty by the owner to provide food, water, shelter, social companionships and
veterinary care to the animal because it is under their care and there is a close
relationship between the rabbit and people. However, rabbits can also be farmed
for meat or fur, or used in laboratories for experiments. Under these circumstances
supporters of the relational ethical view would consider it acceptable for these
animals to be treated less well than pet rabbits as the relationship between humans
and the animals is not as close. Finally, in many countries, rabbits are an invasive
pest species that breeds prolifically and can be destructive in eating grass and
vegetables that have been planted for other purposes. For supporters of the
relational ethical view we have no specific, moral duties to pest rabbits, except
to get rid of them as efficiently as possible. From the rabbit’s point of view it still
has the same interest in its own welfare, the same needs for food, water and other
aspects of welfare, regardless of our use of it, but from the relational ethical view
our responsibilities to provide good welfare or good care is less for those rabbits
to which we do not have a close relationship or any relationship at all. The ethical
or moral duty then is dependent on the context in which we interact with the
animal.

21.5 PRACTICAL ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING

By now it should be very clear to you that ethical reasoning around our use and
treatment of animals is far from clear and, depending on the ethical frameworks
we may be using, can result in very different decisions being made in practice
for our treatment of animals. This does not mean that one ethical view is right
and the others are wrong, they are all equally valid in considering how animal
should be treated. As we discussed in section 19.5, is it necessarily the case that
a person must adopt only one ethical framework and make all decisions based on
190
this alone, it is perfectly possible to use different types of ethical reasoning in Animal Welfare Ethical
Theories-2
making decisions. As we have discussed throughout Units 20 and 21, through
the use of different case examples, application of different ethical views, or
sometimes even the strength of different ethical views (as in Animal Rights views)
can influence what might be considered ethical and moral in the treatment or use
of animals.

Although all the ethical frameworks discussed are relevant to animal treatment,
in practice a number of ethical positions dominate. Utilitarian practices are widely
used, and can form the basis of Animal Welfare and Ethics Review Boards
(AWERBs) in many countries, which make decisions about the costs and benefits
of proposed experimental studies using animals and whether these should be
permitted or not. However, here too a pluralist approach can be seen as, for
many countries, the great apes are not permitted to be used for any experimental
studies (involving invasive or harmful procedures, they may take part in
behavioural studies of cognition or learning), applying an animal rights view
that these animals have rights that are greater than those of other non-human
animals. Also we might see evidence for relational ethical views too, as the use
of dogs and cats in research generally requires much more evidence and
justification than the use of rats and mice. The relational view of animal treatment
is also often apparent in the practical treatment of animals: in general, pet animals
(with whom we have a close relationship) enjoy a much greater standard of
veterinary care, concern for their welfare and often a more humane end than
might farmed animals.

A final point here is that, in the application of ethical reasoning, most ethical
views are influenced by the capacities that animals have. In considering whether
the interests of the animal are relevant (in utilitarian thinking) or the types of
animals that should be given rights (in Animal Rights moral reasoning) then the
capacity of the animal to suffer, to be sentient, is relevant. In some cases the
degree of rights or the assessment of harm/benefit might be greater for some
animals because they are perceived to have a greater capacity for emotional
experience than others (for example, this is likely an influence in the greater
rights given to the Great Apes compared to other primates). The relational ethical
view, and the respect for nature position, differ from other views in that this is
less important compared to the intrinsic value that the animal may have, either
as a species, or as an individual.
Check Your Progress 2
Note: a) Use the spaces given below for your answers.
b) Check your answer with those given at the end of the unit.
1) What is the key feature in the Virtue ethics approach?
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
191
Ethics and Animal Welfare 2) How does the Virtue ethics approach differ from utilitarianism and deontology
approaches?
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................

21.6 LET US SUM UP

In this unit we have considered the application of deontology and virtue
ethics in our decision-making around the treatment of animals
Deontology is the ethical view that it is not the outcomes or the consequences
of our actions that should be considered, but the actions themselves.
The best-known application of this ethical view to the treatment of animals
is the ‘Animal Rights’ movement.
Within Animal Rights there is variation in what sort of rights should be
extended to animals, and thus what is acceptable treatment of animals. At
the more extreme end, any use of animals would be considered unacceptable.
The third ethical framework that can apply to animals is virtue ethics, which
suggests it is not actions that are important, but the type of person we are.
Relational ethics argues that the way we should behave towards animals
depends on the closeness of the relationship we have with them, and thus
we should provide better care to animals, such as pets, because we have a
closer relationship to them than to farm animals or laboratory animals.
Our ethical decision-making in practice may favour one or other approach,
and some views are more commonly used than others, but no position is
more or less ‘right’ than others in determining the treatment of animals.

21.7 KEYWORDS
Animal Rights: An idea, based on deontology, that some, or all, non-human
animals are entitled to their own existence, are ‘subjects-of-a-life’, and their
interests in avoiding suffering should be respected.

Deontology: An ethical theory that states that the morality of an action should be
based on whether the action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather
than based on the consequences of the action.

Virtue Ethics: An ethical view that argues that it is what we do, rather than the
consequences of what we do, that is important, asking what would a moral or
virtuous person do in a given situation.

21.8 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND FURTHER READING

Palmer and Sandoe (2018). Animal Ethics (Chapter 1) In: Animal Welfare, 3rd
Edition, Ed. M.A. Appleby, A.S. Olsson & F. Galindo, CABI.
192
http://www.aedilemma.net/home - A website where you can learn more about Animal Welfare Ethical
Theories-2
different ethical views and how different ethical views influence your own
behaviour through interactive animal ethical dilemmas.

21.9 SELF ASSESSMENT EXERCISES

1) How do deontological ethical views differ from consequentialist views?
2) Briefly describe animal rights approaches to the treatment of animals.
3) Describe how different ethical views might influence decisions to use animals
in experiments.
4) What are the key principles of virtue ethics?
5) Discuss the application of relational ethical thinking to our treatment of the
rabbit in different contexts.

21.10 ANSWERS/HINTS TO CHECK YOUR

PROGRESS
Check Your Progress 1
1) Deontology is an ethical theory that states that the morality of an action
should be based on whether the action itself is right or wrong under a series
of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action.
2) Unlike consequentialism, deontological ethics are concerned with what
people do, not the consequences of their actions. The key principles are: do
the right thing because it is the right thing to do, and avoid doing wrong
things because they are wrong.
3) The Categorical Imperative states that one should always act in such a way
that it could be applied to everyone in the same situation.
4) Prima facie duties are self-evident and obvious duties or responsibilities.
Whereas actual duties are what we should do based on the balance of these
responsibilities.
5) Defenders of animal rights believe that there are fixed ethical rules that
always apply to and limit our treatment of animals. These suggest that there
are things that are just not ethical to do to animals, which must be prohibited.
Although this applies to all views of animal rights, what rights animals should
have can vary from person to person, and thus the animal rights view can
cover a range of differing views of animal treatment and use.
Check Your Progress 2
1) Virtue ethics focus is on the character of the individual, and that morality
arises from intrinsic values.
2) Virtue ethics approach argues that we should behave in a caring, generous
and honest way not because of the outcomes for the animals, or because of
the rights of the animal, but because this is what makes a caring and virtuous
person. Virtue ethics can be used to take into account the context-dependent
situations, in which human-animal relationships are usually found.

193