THE VALUE OF ANIMAL LIFE

Transcription

1 THE VALUE OF ANIMAL LIFE Peter Sandøe University of Copenhagen Department of Large Animal Sciences Department of Food and Resource Economics Dias 1

2 Dias 2

3 Dias 3

4 Dias 4

5 Dias 5

6 Dias 6

7 Dias 7

8 Dias 8

9 Dias 9

10 ft her rter uden stilling punktpå brug rykning venstrekst uden stilling, mindsk ng ndre ns navn og dato : nulinjen, dsæt > ed / ted og eltet for Enhedens Sidefod Dias 10

11 ft her rter uden stilling punktpå brug rykning venstrekst uden stilling, mindsk ng ndre ns navn og dato : nulinjen, dsæt > ed / ted og eltet for Enhedens Sidefod Dias 11

12 Dias 12

13 Dias 13

14 WHAT HAVE THESE DISCUSSIONS IN COMMON? They are all about whether or not it is right to kill animals There are other values at stake too Animal welfare Conservation Human life and welfare So those who favour killing of animals need not disagree that other things being equal it is bad to kill animals However, some seem to think that there is in principle nothing bad about killing animals Dias 14

15 TEMPLE GRANDIN I think using animals for food is an ethical thing to do, but we've got to do it right. We've got to give those animals a decent life and we've got to give them a painless death. We owe the animal respect. Dias 15

16 ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING GRANDIN S VIEW 1. Welfare and only welfare matters in our dealings with animals 2. When an animal is given a painless death there is not a welfare issue Adherents of animal rights will disagree with 1. Adherents of utilitarianism will disagree with 2. Dias 16

17 SINGER ON KILLING OF ANIMALS Given that an animal belongs to a species incapable of self-consciousness, it follows that it is not wrong to rear and kill it for food, provided that it lives a pleasant life and, after being killed, will be replaced by another animal which will lead a similarly pleasant life and would not have existed if the first animal had not been killed. This means that vegetarianism is not obligatory for those who can obtain meat from animals that they know to have been reared in this manner. (Singer 1979)

18

19 CHALLENGE FOR SINGER Let us suppose that, inspired by Singer s article, people were to hit on the idea of having their pets painlessly put down at the start of each holiday (as some pet owners already do), acquiring new ones upon their return. Suppose, indeed, that a company grows up, Disposapup Ltd., which rears the animals, house-trains them, supplies them to any willing purchaser, takes them back, exterminates them and supplies replacements, on demand. It is clear, is it not, that there can, for Singer, be absolutely nothing directly wrong with such a practice. Every puppy has, we may assume, an extremely happy, albeit brief, life - and indeed, would not have existed at all but for the practice. (Lockwood, 1979)

20 RIGHTS VIEW ON KILLING Killing a healthy animal for reasons other than self defence is according to the rights view is the ultimate violation of that animal s rights

21 REGAN ON ANIMAL PRODUCTION As for commercial animal agriculture, the rights view takes an... abolitionist position. The fundamental moral wrong here is not that animals are kept in stressful close confinement or in isolation, or that their pain and suffering, their needs and preferences are ignored or discounted. All these are wrong, of course, but they are not the fundamental wrong. They are symptoms and effects of the deeper, systematic wrong that allows these animals to be viewed and treated as lacking independent value, as resources for us - as, indeed, a renewable resource. Dias 21 (Tom Regan 1985)

22 Dias 22

23 WHAT IS AT STAKE IN THE DISCUSSION BETWEEN REGAN AND SINGER For Regan there is an absolute right to life; for Singer there is no such thing For Singer only welfare matters; for Regan other things than welfare matter For Singer animals are replaceable; for Regan they are not Dias 23

24 ASSUMPTIONS SHARED BY REGAN AND SINGER 1. They are both anti-speciesist 2. The are both only concerned about individuals Adherents of giving priority to human life and welfare will disagree with 1. Adherents of the value of species, ecosystems and the like will disagree about 2. Dias 24

25 A RANGE OF VIEWS OF KILLING OF ANIMALS Killing of animals is OK as long as It is in our interest It is not an animal we care about There is no welfare issue Human life and welfare is at stake Protection of species or ecosystems is at stake It is outweighed by concern for animal or human welfare It is necessary for self-defense It is in the best interest of the affected animal Killing of animals is never OK Dias 25

26 LET S RECONSIDER THE CASES PRESENTED IN THE BEGINNING OF THE TALK Marius the surplus zoo giraffe Killing of abandoned companion animals that are difficult to re-home Killing of laboratory animals after they have been used in an experiment Killing of animals for food Culling of kangaroos Culling of feral cats Dias 26