Animals, Society and Culture

1. Animals, Society and Culture Lecture 15: Species, social construction and power 2012-13

2. Lecture outline • Speciesism and animal ethics • Singer’s utilitarianism and Regan’s rights-based arguments • Critiques

3. Speciesism • ‘Speciesism ….. is a prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species.’ (Singer, 1975:6) • Institutionalised • Analogous to racism, sexism, ageism etc • System of oppression

4. Animal ethics • (1) Which entities deserve moral consideration, and how much consideration are these entities owed? • (2) Do animals deserve moral consideration, have moral rights, or in some other sense possess moral standing?

5. Ethical humanism • View that • (i) only human beings deserve moral consideration • (ii) all human beings deserve equal moral consideration • Based on specieisism – either qualified or unqualified

6. Problems • Not all humans have properties that are morally relevant • E.g. not everyone has capacity for language, new-born infants • BUT more inlcusive morally relevant property – like consciousness or sentience – might include animals • Dilemma for qualified specieisist

7. Challenges to ethical humanism • Peter Singer and Tom Regan • Include marginal humans within moral sphere so select property shared by all humans • Sentience for Singer • Idea of ‘subject-of-a-life’ for Regan • Many non-human animals share these morally relevant properties

8. Utilitarian case • Equality • Interests • All humans should have their interests considered equally with those of others • Equal consideration has to be given to interests of every being possessed of interests, regardless of gender, race, species

9. Answers • Q1. ‘Every being with interests deserves moral consideration and deserves to have its interests considered equally with the like interests of others.’ (DeMelo, 2010:68) • Q2. Only sentient beings have interests, have an interest in avoiding pain, so have to give equal consideration to interests of all sentient beings.

10. Practical implications • Ethical vegetarianism • Animal experimentation should be abolished • Both are ‘speciesism in practice’ • Doesn’t discuss rights because not necessary to ‘get embroiled in philosophical controversies about the ultimate nature of rights’ (1975:8)

11. Regan • Moral rights have their source in moral values • Have moral rights because possess morally relevant properties • Two types of moral rights • Negative • Positive • Argues in terms of negative rights

12. Rejects utilitarianism • Consequentialism • Greatest good of greatest number • For Regan individuals have an inherent value • Because they are subjects-of-a-life – have beliefs, desires, perceptions, memory, can feel pain and pleasure, are able to initiate action

13. Moral agents and moral patients • Moral agent is someone who is capable of ‘applying abstract, impartial moral principles to their decision making’ (xvii) • Moral patient lacks these capacities • Both moral agent and moral patient have inherent value because subjects of a life • Do not coincide with human and animal

14. Convergence • All conscious, sentient animals deserve equal moral consideration • Practical implications of views • Most people have speciesist attitudes • ‘The reality is that animal exploitation underpins the way we feed and clothe ourselves, our forms of entertainment and leisure, and our structures of industrial production and scientific research’ (Donaldson and Kymicka, 2011:2).

15. Critique • Nussbaum capabilities approach • Ted Benton – eco-socialist – critiques rights based view • Singer and Regan humanocentric • Benton, T (1996) ‘Animal rights: an eco-socialist view’ in R.Garner (ed) Animal Rights: the changing debate, Palgrave

16. Problems with rights view • No distinction between active and passive rights • No relational element • No discussion of moral purpose of rights attribution • Based on a negative concept of rights • Lack of recognition that different moral obligations owed to different species • Conflicting rights

17. Active and passive rights • Those who can claim rights for themselves • Those who can’t • Difference between children and adults • Children, like animals, lack capacities to enable them to become bearers of active rights – acting for self-definition and self-determination

18. No relational element • No sense that animals incorporated into social relations of power with humans • Incorporated differently • Moral obligations entailed by animals having rights aren’t clear • Do we prevent wild animals from being attacked by predators for instance? • Is pet-keeping an infringement of an animal’s rights? • Should the interests of wild animals be taken into account in planning decisions which affect their habitats?

19. What is moral purpose? • To protect interests/welfare of those that are vulnerable • Moral agents define own interests • Moral patients unable to do this • Connection between moral patients and vulnerability • Moral patients in need of ‘moral agent’ to act on their behalf

20. Based on negative concept of rights • Freedom from interference • Rests on idea of autonomous individual, self-interested individual • Need positive concept of rights involving idea of collective responsibility to actively enable

21. Interests vary • Interests are different for different species • Moral obligations will differ depending on ‘species-specific requirements’ • Implications for pets, farmed animals

22. Conflicting rights • How are rights of wild animals not be interfered with to be balanced against rights of livestock to sufficient grazing land and rights of humans to grow and protect their crops? • Badger cull is an example of this • Limitations of arguments based on rights

23. Species-specific needs • Actions towards animals should be grounded in understanding species-specific mode of life and needs associated with it • Limited understanding of conditions of well-being of other species • Notion of well-being and interests central to arguments of utilitarians and the rights view. • Assume continuity between humans and animals • Have rights to the extent that they’re like us • But need to be treated in a way that’s appropriate to the animal in question

24. Summary • Speciesism attitude that values own species above others, legitimates species barrier and all sorts of exploitation of animals. • Animal ethics based on qualified and unqualified speciesism. • Singer and Regan develop ethics which is not speciesist – but it is humanocentric because animals have moral worth to the extent that they are like humans. • Their arguments have been criticised on a number of grounds – consequentialism for Singer’s utilitarian approach, limitations of idea of negative rights for Regan and need to understand how animals are incorporated into social relations with humans and that their interests will differ accordingly.

25. References • Cochrane, A (2010) An introduction to animals and political theory, Palgrave • Donaldson, S and Kymlicka, W (2011) Zoopolis: a political theory of animal rights, Oxford University Press • Kemmerer, L (ed) (2011) Sister species, University of Illinois Press • Regan, T (2004)The case forAnimal Rights, University of California Press • Singer, P (1995) (2nd edition) Animal Liberation, Pimlico