Introduction to animal welfare ethics 動物福利倫理介紹

1. Introduction to animal welfare ethics動物福利倫理介紹 Module 10 模組10

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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 areethical dilemmas 並非所有的兩難局面都是道德上的兩難 • Many dilemmas canoften be solved by careful thought 許多兩難局面可透過審慎思考而獲得解決 ?

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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？

11. 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 haveonly instrumental valuetohumans? …實驗動物是否僅有工具價值?

12. 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, haveintrinsic value? 寵物是否像我們的家人一樣，有內在價值?

13. 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)

14. 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 …and a plant is not… …植物沒有… then what about… 那關於… …if a dog is sentient… 如果狗有感覺… ?

15. 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 • 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 …sad? 難過? …happy? 快樂?

16. 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?

17. Evidence for sentience 2感知的證據 2 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 Evolution 演化 • Continuity between humans and other animals 人類與其他動物的關連

18. Evidence for sentience 3感知的證據 3 Physiology and Anatomy生理學與解剖學 Similarities with humans, especiallyneurophysiology and neuroanatomy 與人類相似，尤其是神經生理學與神經解剖學

19. 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?

20. 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 self- awareness?這是否會將 [意識] 誤認為 [自我意識] ?

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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?

25. 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

26. 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]

27. 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

28. 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。

29. Approaches to animal ethics: an ethical matrix 深層動物倫理學：道德矩陣

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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。

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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. 2005Animal 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 1997The Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal Slavery. New York: Institute for the Development of Earth Awareness.

38. 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.