DOCSLIB.ORG

Ahimsa and Alternatives - the Concept of the 4Th R

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ahimsa and Alternatives - the Concept of the 4Th R --~-------------------------- Ahimsa and Alternatives - the Concept of the 4th R. The CPCSEAin India Shiranee Pereira' and Massimo Tettamanii? ICommittee fos the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (CPCSEA), IN-Chennai 2International Centre for Alternatives in Research and Education (I-CARE), IN-Chennai Summary Zusammenfassung: Ahimsa und Alternativen - das Konzept The Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of des vierten R. Das CPCSEA in Indien Experiments on Animals (CPCSEA) in India is one of a kind in Das Komitee zur Kontrolle und Aufsicht über Tierversuche the world. It is a statutory body of the government of India (CPCSEA) in Indien ist weltweit einzigartig. Es ist eine Ein- formed by an act of the Indian parliament. This body consists richtung der indischen Regierung, geschaffen durch einen of nominated members and representatives from national Beschluss des indischen Parlaments. Das Gremium besteht aus regulatory agencies, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, ernannten Mitgliedern und Vertretern von nationalen Aufsichts- Ministry of Environment and Forests, national academic and behörden, des Ministeriums für Gesundheit und Familie und research councils, premier research institutes, eminent seien- des Ministeriums für Umwelt und Wälder. Im Weiteren gehören tists and animal welfare organisations. The CPCSEA draws ihm nationale Berater aus Akademie- und Forschungskreisen, its powers from the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act bekannte Wissenschaftler sowie Vertreter von führenden of 1960 which states that the duty ofthe committee is "to take Forschungseinrichtungen und Tierschutzorganisationen an. all such measures as may be necessary to ensure that animals Das CPCSEA leitet seine Befugnisse aus dem Gesetz zur are not subject to unnecessary pain or suffering before, during Vermeidung von Grausamkeit gegen Tiere von 1960 ab, in dem or after the performance of experiments on them ". festgelegt ist, dass das Komitee "alle nötigen Massnahmen With the power to promulgate its own laws to ensure the ergreifen muss, um sicherzustellen, dass Tiere vor, während humane and ethical use of animals in research and education, und nach Versuchen keinen unnötigen Schmerzen oder Leiden the CPCSEA in 1998 notified in the gazette of India the ausgesetzt werden ". "Breeding of and Experiments on Animals (Control and Mit der Befugnis eigene Gesetze zu erlassen, um die humane Supervision) Rules 1998". und ethische Nutzung von Tieren in Forschung und Lehre The CPCSEA is unique in that the law in itself has enabled the sicherzustellen, hat das CPCSEA 1998 in der Gazette of India creation of a common platform of discussion for scientists "Richtlinien zur Zucht und Nutzung von Tierenfür Experimente and animal activists for humane and progressive solutions for (Kontrolle und Aufsicht) 1998" publiziert. the use of animals in experimentation. In a country that is Das CPCSEA ist einzigartig, weil hier ein Gesetz unmittelbar caught in a paradox of violence and rich cultural and religious eine Plattform geschaffen hat, auf der Wissenschaftler und Tier- traditions, India still draws a lot of its power from the concept schützet Diskussionen im Sinne humaner und fortschrittlicher of "Ahimsa" (the philosophy of non-violence). This concept is Lösungen bei Tierversuchen führen. In einem Land, das sich also pertinent to the use of animals in laboratories. Unethical, in einem Paradoxon von Gewalt und reicher kultureller und inhumane and unscientific practices, and ignorance of the religiöser Traditionen verfangen hat, schöpft Indien immer use of alternatives were the way of science until 1999 when noch viel seiner Kraft aus dem Konzept der "Ahimsa ", der CPCSEA became functional. For four years CPCSEA has Philosophie der Gewaltlosigkeit. Dieses Prinzip findet nun auch waged a battle, rescued thousands of animals from laborato- in Tierversuchsanlagen Anwendung. Unethische, inhumane ries, fought legal battles to victory, enforced for the first time und unwissenschaftliche Praktiken und Unkenntnis gegenüber in the country good laboratory practice, designed guidelines dem Einsatz von Alternativmethoden waren vor 1999, als das for the use of animals in the production of immunobiologicals, CPCSEA seine Arbeit aufnahm, gängige Methoden in der introduced the credo of 3R principles, trained and taught Wissenschaft. Vier Jahre führte das Komitee einen regelrechten scientific personnel the credibility of humane science and Feldzug, rettete tausende Tiere aus Laboratorien, führte most importantly brought forward the concept of the fourth R, siegreiche Prozesse, setzte erstmals im Land die "gute Labor- "rehabilitation" of used laboratory animals. Today CPCSEA praxis " in Kraft sowie Richtlinien für die Verwendung von has made it anational policy that personnel using experimen- Tieren bei der Herstellung von Immunbiologika, führte das tal animals have amoral responsibility towards these animals Credo der 3R ein, brachte wissenschaftlichem Personal die Received 18 November 2004; received in final form and accepted for publication 3 January 2005 ALTEX 22, 1/05 3 PEREIRA AND TETTAMANTI m.... ----------------------------------------~--- after their use. Costs of after-care/rehabilitation of animals Grundsätze humaner Wissenschaft näher und, am allerwich- post experimentation are to be apart of research costs and tigsten, es verhalf dem Konzept des vierten Rs, der Rehabilitation should be scaled in positive correlation with the level of verwendeter Labortiere, zur Geltung. Das Komitee hat dieses sentience of the animals. Konzept zu einem nationalen Grundsatz erhoben, nach dem This paper is about the Indian law on anima I experimentation Personen, die Tiere verwenden, auch nach dem Experiment eine and the success story of the CPCSEA in India in inculcating moralische Verpflichtung gegenüber diesen Tieren haben. Die the credo of 4Rs - Replacement, Reduction, Refinement, and Kosten der Nachsorge und Rehabilitation der Tiere nach den Rehabilittuion of animals used in experimentation. Experimenten bilden Teil der Forschungskosten; sie sind positiv korreliert mit der Empfindungsfähigkeit der Tiere. In diesem Beitrag geht es um die indische Rechtsprechung zu Tierversuchen und die Erfolgsgeschichte des CPCSEA bei der Festlegung des Bekenntnisses zu den 4Rs - Replacement, Reduction, Refinement und Rehabilitation von Versuchstieren. Keywords: anima I experimentation, rehabilitation, ahimsa, animal welfare in India, control and supervision 1 Introduction Animal Welfare Board of India, by an act the following changes were brought of parliament, with the sole purpose of about: Ahimsa is a Sanskrit word meaning "not controlling and supervising experiments • Over 850 laboratories registered with to kill". In a broader sense it refers to the on animals. The PCA lays down the duty the CPCSEA concept of "non-violence", It is derived of the CPCSEA as "to take all such mea- • IAEC's (Institution al Animal Ethics from the word "himsa" which means "to sures as may be necessary to ensure that Committees) were founded in all regis- kill". Ahimsa is an enduring Indian tradi- animals are not subject to unnecessary tered institutes tion signifying the sacredness of life. pain or suffering before, during or after • Over 300 CPCSEA nominees were ap- Hindus, Buddhists and Jains view all the performance of experiments on pointed in these institutes living things as incarnations of a single them". • An expert committee was appointed to life force. When a creature dies it could With the power to promulgate its own scrutinise and approve large animal be re-incarnated into another form and laws to ensure the humane and ethical use hence be vitalised by a soul of an ances- use of animals in research and education, • Good Laboratory Practice was intro- tor or friend. In a country that is caught the CPCSEA in 1998 notified the duced in a paradox of violence and rich cultur- "Breeding of and Experiments on Ani- • A protocol for the care and use of al and religious traditions, India still mals (Control & Supervision) Rules equines in the production of immuno- draws a lot of its power from the concept 1998" (Anon, 1998) which was amended biologieals was introduced of Ahimsa. Like India's struggle to in 2001. The CPCSEA is unique in that • The 3R credo was introduced freedom from British occupation, the the law itself has enabled the creation • Alternatives validated by ECVAM progress towards laws that govern the of a comrnon platform for recourse and (European Commission for the Valida- care and use of animals in experimenta- discussion between scientists, policy tion of Alternative Methods) and ICC- tion has been guided and propelled by makers and animal activists by way of VAM (Interagency Coordination Com- Ahimsa. which the CPCSEA works for humane mittee for the Validation of Alternative and progressive solutions in the use of Methods) were recommended to regu- animals in experimentation. latory authorities 2 Indian law and animal From 1964 to 1998 little was done to • A national ban on the SempIe vaccine experimentation alleviate the suffering of laboratory ani- was urged mals in India. The CPCSEA committees • Two year phase-out of the ascites The law that governs the use and care of failed to irnpose the laws and lacked ef- method of monoclonal antibody pro- animals in experimentation is the Preven- fective methods for implementation and duction tion of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA) of a dismal scenario continued in laborato- • Hundreds of laboratory animals
Load more

Recommended publications
  • "Higher" Cognition. Animal Sentience
    Animal Sentience 2017.030: Vallortigara on Marino on Thinking Chickens Sentience does not require “higher” cognition Commentary on Marino on Thinking Chickens Giorgio Vallortigara Centre for Mind/Brain Sciences University of Trento, Italy Abstract: I agree with Marino (2017a,b) that the cognitive capacities of chickens are likely to be the same as those of many others vertebrates. Also, data collected in the young of this precocial species provide rich information about how much cognition can be pre-wired and predisposed in the brain. However, evidence of advanced cognition — in chickens or any other organism — says little about sentience (i.e., feeling). We do not deny sentience in human beings who, because of cognitive deficits, would be incapable of exhibiting some of the cognitive feats of chickens. Moreover, complex problem solving, such as transitive inference, which has been reported in chickens, can be observed even in the absence of any accompanying conscious experience in humans. Giorgio Vallortigara, professor of Neuroscience at the Centre for Mind/Brain Sciences of the University of Trento, Italy, studies space, number and object cognition, and brain asymmetry in a comparative and evolutionary perspective. The author of more than 250 scientific papers on these topics, he was the recipient of several awards, including the Geoffroy Saint Hilaire Prize for Ethology (France) and a Doctor Rerum Naturalium Honoris Causa for outstanding achievements in the field of psychobiology (Ruhr University, Germany). r.unitn.it/en/cimec/abc In a revealing piece in New Scientist (Lawler, 2015a) and a beautiful book (Lawler, 2015b), science journalist Andrew Lawler discussed the possible consequences for humans of the sudden disappearance of some domesticated species.
    [Show full text]
  • Dharma Dogs: a Narrative Approach to Understanding the Connection of Sentience Between Humans and Canines Anna Caldwell SIT Study Abroad
    SIT Graduate Institute/SIT Study Abroad SIT Digital Collections Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection SIT Study Abroad Fall 2016 Dharma Dogs: A Narrative Approach to Understanding the Connection of Sentience Between Humans and Canines Anna Caldwell SIT Study Abroad Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/isp_collection Part of the Animal Studies Commons, Asian Studies Commons, Community-Based Learning Commons, Community-Based Research Commons, Family, Life Course, and Society Commons, and the Sociology of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Caldwell, Anna, "Dharma Dogs: A Narrative Approach to Understanding the Connection of Sentience Between Humans and Canines" (2016). Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection. 2500. https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/isp_collection/2500 This Unpublished Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the SIT Study Abroad at SIT Digital Collections. It has been accepted for inclusion in Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection by an authorized administrator of SIT Digital Collections. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Dharma Dogs A Narrative Approach to Understanding the Connection of Sentience Between Humans and Canines Cadwell, Anna Academic Director: Decleer, Hubert and Yonetti, Eben Franklin and Marshall College Anthropology Central Asia, India, Himachal Pradesh, Dharamsala Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Nepal: Tibetan and Himalayan Peoples, SIT Study Abroad, Fall 2016 Abstract India has the highest population of stray dogs in the world1. Dharamsala, a cross-cultural community in the north Indian Himalayan foothills, is home to a number of particularly overweight and happy canines. However, the street dogs of Dharamsala are not an accurate representation of the state of stay dogs across India.
    [Show full text]
  • Misadventures of Sentience: Animals and the Basis of Equality
    animals Article Misadventures of Sentience: Animals and the Basis of Equality Federico Zuolo Department of Classics, Philosophy and History, University of Genova, via Balbi 30, 16126 Genova, Italy; [email protected] Received: 31 October 2019; Accepted: 27 November 2019; Published: 29 November 2019 Simple Summary: Equal moral worth in animal ethics is an elusive moral notion not only because of the notorious human prejudice but also because grounding equal moral worth requires attending to the problem of the basis of equality. How can we ground equality given that all human and nonhuman individuals vary in all the morally considerable features? John Rawls claimed that we can use range properties, namely properties that are equally possessed by all people who pass a certain threshold of moral relevance (e.g., the age of majority gives equal right to vote). In this paper, I critically discuss two different attempts to defend an egalitarian theory in animal ethics: Alasdair Cochrane’s and Peter Singer’s. The former seeks to eschew the problem of range properties by appealing to a binary property naturally possessed by all sentient beings (the property of having interests). His attempt fails because this property has the same problems as range properties. The latter dispenses with equal moral worth altogether by defending the principle of equal consideration of interests. I argue that this principle has weak egalitarian credentials. I conclude by outlining the conditions that a sound theory in animal ethics should meet. Abstract: This paper aims to put in question the all-purposes function that sentience has come to play in animal ethics.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics Beyond Sentience Matthew Ip Analto Eastern Kentucky University
    Volume 1 Nature's Humans Article 6 2016 Ethics Beyond Sentience Matthew iP analto Eastern Kentucky University Follow this and additional works at: https://encompass.eku.edu/tcj Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Pianalto, Matthew (2016) "Ethics Beyond Sentience," The Chautauqua Journal: Vol. 1 , Article 6. Available at: https://encompass.eku.edu/tcj/vol1/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Encompass. It has been accepted for inclusion in The hC autauqua Journal by an authorized editor of Encompass. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Pianalto: Ethics Beyond Sentience MATTHEW PIANALTO ETHICS BEYOND SENTIENCE To whom—or what—do we owe basic acknowledgment, respect, and consideration? To whom—or what—do we have those basic obligations? These are the questions I wish to probe in this essay. They are questions that can seem to require the drawing of lines, the identification of criteria that make some beings “morally considerable” while other beings do not warrant this kind of special moral attention. Such questions have received a great deal of attention from moral philosophers, and have generated many very different responses, ranging from views that regard human beings as sole possessors of this special property of moral considerability to views that attribute this feature to every corner of existence. Views of the latter sort will strike some as silly—overly romantic perhaps, and because of this, largely impractical. I am nevertheless often attracted to such views for the potential power they have to stimulate moral imagination. Such views ask us to move beyond human-centered ways of thinking about ethics and obligations, to see our responsibilities extending beyond the effects of our actions on our fellow humans.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Pain: a Painful Topic
    Safina, Carl (2016) Fish pain: A painful topic. Animal Sentience 3(41) DOI: 10.51291/2377-7478.1076 This article has appeared in the journal Animal Sentience, a peer-reviewed journal on animal cognition and feeling. It has been made open access, free for all, by WellBeing International and deposited in the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Animal Sentience 2016.066: Safina Commentary on Key on Fish Pain Fish pain: A painful topic Commentary on Key on Fish Pain Carl Safina Marine & Atmospheric Sciences Stony Brook University Abstract: If fish cannot feel pain, why do stingrays have purely defensive tail spines that deliver venom? Stingrays’ ancestral predators are fish. And why do many fishes possess defensive fin spines, some also with venom that produces pain in humans? These things did not evolve just in case sentient humans would evolve millions of years later and then invent scuba. If fish react purely unconsciously to “noxious” stimuli, why aren’t sharp jabbing spines enough? Why also stinging venom? Carl Safina [email protected] is the inaugural endowed professor for nature and humanity at Stony Brook University, where he co-chairs the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science and is founding president of the not-for-profit Safina Center. Beyond Words: What Animals Think and Feel is Carl’s seventh book. http://safinacenter.org/about-carl-safina/ Key (2016) seems an excellent neurobiologist, but he is less convincing as a logician. He launches with the seemingly inarguable truism that to address whether fish can feel pain, “it is necessary to first understand the neural basis of pain in humans, since it is the only species able to directly report on its feelings.” But no logic supports this conflation of pain and human speech.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Sentience Denial: Muddying the Waters
    Sneddon, Lynne U.; Lopez-Luna, Javier; Wolfenden, David C.C.; Leach, Matthew C.; Valentim, Ana M.; Steenbergen, Peter J.; Bardine, Nabila; Currie, Amanda D.; Broom, Donald M.; and Brown, Culum (2018) Fish sentience denial: Muddying the waters. Animal Sentience 21(1) DOI: 10.51291/2377-7478.1317 This article has appeared in the journal Animal Sentience, a peer-reviewed journal on animal cognition and feeling. It has been made open access, free for all, by WellBeing International and deposited in the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Sneddon, Lynne U.; Lopez-Luna, Javier; Wolfenden, David C.C.; Leach, Matthew C.; Valentim, Ana M.; Steenbergen, Peter J.; Bardine, Nabila; Currie, Amanda D.; Broom, Donald M.; and Brown, Culum (2018) Fish sentience denial: Muddying the waters. Animal Sentience 21(1) DOI: 10.51291/2377-7478.1317 Authors Lynne U. Sneddon, Javier Lopez-Luna, David C.C. Wolfenden, Matthew C. Leach, Ana M. Valentim, Peter J. Steenbergen, Nabila Bardine, Amanda D. Currie, Donald M. Broom, and Culum Brown This article is available in Animal Sentience: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/ animsent/vol3/iss21/1 Animal Sentience 2018.115: Sneddon et al. on Sentience Denial Call for Commentary: Animal Sentience publishes Open Peer Commentary on all accepted target articles. Target articles are peer-reviewed. Commentaries are editorially reviewed. There are submitted commentaries as well as invited commentaries. Commentaries appear as soon as they have been reviewed, revised and accepted. Target article authors may respond to their commentaries individually or in a joint response to multiple commentaries. Instructions: animalstudiesrepository.org/animsent/guidelines.html Fish sentience denial: Muddying the waters Lynne U.
    [Show full text]
  • Science, Sentience, and Animal Welfare
    WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository 1-2013 Science, Sentience, and Animal Welfare Robert C. Jones California State University, Chico, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/ethawel Part of the Animal Studies Commons, Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons, and the Nature and Society Relations Commons Recommended Citation Jones, R. C. (2013). Science, sentience, and animal welfare. Biology and Philosophy, 1-30. This material is brought to you for free and open access by WellBeing International. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Science, Sentience, and Animal Welfare Robert C. Jones California State University, Chico KEYWORDS animal, welfare, ethics, pain, sentience, cognition, agriculture, speciesism, biomedical research ABSTRACT I sketch briefly some of the more influential theories concerned with the moral status of nonhuman animals, highlighting their biological/physiological aspects. I then survey the most prominent empirical research on the physiological and cognitive capacities of nonhuman animals, focusing primarily on sentience, but looking also at a few other morally relevant capacities such as self-awareness, memory, and mindreading. Lastly, I discuss two examples of current animal welfare policy, namely, animals used in industrialized food production and in scientific research. I argue that even the most progressive current welfare policies lag behind, are ignorant of, or arbitrarily disregard the science on sentience and cognition. Introduction The contemporary connection between research on animal1 cognition and the moral status of animals goes back almost 40 years to the publication of two influential books: Donald Griffin’s The Question of Animal Awareness: Evolutionary Continuity of Mental Experience (1976) and Peter Singer’s groundbreaking Animal Liberation (1975).
    [Show full text]
  • Cognitive Evidence of Fish Sentience
    Balcombe, Jonathan (2016) Cognitive evidence of fish sentience. Animal Sentience 3(2) DOI: 10.51291/2377-7478.1059 This article has appeared in the journal Animal Sentience, a peer-reviewed journal on animal cognition and feeling. It has been made open access, free for all, by WellBeing International and deposited in the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Animal Sentience 2016.008: Balcombe Commentary on Key on Fish Pain Cognitive evidence of fish sentience Commentary on Key on Fish Pain Jonathan Balcombe Institute for Science and Policy Humane Society of America Abstract: I present a little-known example of flexible, opportunistic behavior by a species of fish to undermine Key’s (2016) thesis that fish are unconscious and unable to feel. Lack of a cortex is flimsy grounds for denying pain to fish, for on that criterion we must also then deny it to all non- mammals, including birds, which goes against scientific consensus. Notwithstanding science’s fundamental inability to prove anything, the precautionary principal dictates that we should give the benefit of the doubt to fish, and the state of the oceans dictates that we act on it now. Jonathan Balcombe [email protected] is Director for Animal Sentience at the Humane Society Institute for Science and Policy in Washington, DC. He has published over 50 scientific papers on animal behavior and animal protection. Jonathan has written four books, with the most recent, What a Fish Knows, scheduled for publication in 2016. www.jonathanbalcombe.com In January 2014 at Schroda Dam, a man-made lake in Limpopo Province, South Africa, scientists documented on film something remarkable and surprising.
    [Show full text]
  • Broom Fish Brains Pain
    Pre-publication copy Broom, D.M. 2016. Fish brains and behaviour indicate capacity for feeling pain. Animal Sentience, 2016.010 (5 pages). Fish brains, as well as fish behaviour, indicate capacity for awareness and feeling pain Donald M. Broom Centre for Anthrozoology and Animal Welfare Department of Veterinary Medicine University of Cambridge Madingley Road Cambridge CB3 0ES U.K. [email protected] http://www.neuroscience.cam.ac.uk/directory/profile.php?dmb16 Keywords pain sentience welfare fish feelings emotions brain behaviour Abstract Studies of behaviour are of major importance in understanding human pain and pain in other animals such as fish. Almost all of the characteristics of the mammalian pain system are also described for fish. Emotions, feelings and learning from these are controlled in the fish brain in areas anatomically different but functionally very similar to those in mammals. The evidence of pain and fear system function in fish is so similar to that in humans and other mammals that it is logical to conclude that fish feel fear and pain. Fish are sentient beings. Key (2015) is scornful about evidence from studies of fish behaviour indicating that fish are aware and feel pain but presents a thorough explanation of the pain system in the human brain and concludes that fish could not feel pain, or have any other feelings, as they do not have the brain structures that allow pain and other feelings in humans. Section 2 of his paper emphasises “the cortical origins of human pain” and states that “structure determines function”, eXplaining the functions of the five layers of the human cortex.
    [Show full text]
  • The Core Argument for Veganism
    Philosophia (2015) 43:271–290 DOI 10.1007/s11406-015-9595-5 The Core Argument for Veganism Stijn Bruers1 Received: 11 November 2014 /Revised: 16 March 2015 /Accepted: 23 March 2015 / Published online: 4 April 2015 # Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015 Abstract This article presents an argument for veganism, using a formal-axiomatic approach: a list of twenty axioms (basic definitions, normative assumptions and empirical facts) are explicitly stated. These axioms are all necessary conditions to derive the conclusion that veganism is a moral duty. The presented argument is a minimalist or core argument for veganism, because it is as parsimonious as possible, using the weakest conditions, the narrowest definitions, the most reliable empirical facts and the minimal assumptions necessary to reach the conclusion. If someone does not accept the conclu- sion, logical consistency requires that s/he should be able to point at axiom(s) on which s/ he disagrees. The argument exposes hidden assumptions and provides a framework for an overview of the philosophical literature on animal rights and vegetarianism / veganism. Keywords Veganism . Speciesism . Animal ethics . Sentience Is veganism a moral duty? This article is an attempt to present a most logical argument for veganism,1 using a formal-axiomatic approach: all axioms (premises such as basic definitions, normative assumptions and empirical facts), as well as the logical steps from those axioms to the conclusions, will be stated as explicitly as possible. This axiomatic approach has three advantages. First, it allows us to directly and efficiently study the question: if people want to continue eating animal products, which of the assumptions do they reject? Everyone who wants to justify the consumption of animal products should be able to indicate at least one of the axioms that s/he rejects.
    [Show full text]
  • Sentience and Animal Welfare: New Thoughts and Controversies
    Broom, Donald M. (2016) Sentience and animal welfare: New thoughts and controversies. Animal Sentience 5(11) DOI: 10.51291/2377-7478.1024 This article has appeared in the journal Animal Sentience, a peer-reviewed journal on animal cognition and feeling. It has been made open access, free for all, by WellBeing International and deposited in the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Animal Sentience 2016.057: Response to Commentary on Broom on Animal Welfare Sentience and animal welfare: New thoughts and controversies Response to Commentary on Broom on Animal Welfare Donald M. Broom Centre for Animal Welfare and Anthrozoology University of Cambridge Abstract: Sentience involves having some degree of awareness but awareness of self is not as complex as some people believe. Fully functioning vertebrate animals, and some invertebrates, are sentient but neither humans nor non-humans are sentient early in development or if brain-damaged. Feelings are valuable adaptive mechanisms and an important part of welfare but are not all of welfare so the term welfare refers to all animals, not just to sentient animals. We have much to learn about what non-human animals want from us, the functioning of the more complex aspects of their brains and of our brains and how we should treat animals of each species. Animal welfare science will continue to play a major part in determining how we fulfill our obligations to the animals with which we interact. Donald M. Broom [email protected] is Emeritus Professor of Animal Welfare at Cambridge University. He has developed concepts and methods of scientific assessment of animal welfare and studied: cognitive abilities of animals, the welfare of animals in relation to housing and transport, behaviour problems, attitudes to animals and ethics of animal usage.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Sentience and Emotions
    Animal Sentience and Emotions: The Argument for Universal Acceptance © iStock.com/TheImaginaryDuck © iStock.com/Eriko Hume © iStock.com/Eriko © iStock.com/global_explorer © iStock.com/Delpixart Prepared by Ingrid L. Taylor, D.V.M. Research Associate, Laboratory Investigations Department 1 People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals | 2021 © iStock.com/Jérémy Stenuit than “learning and memory.”4 Thus, in observations of Introduction animal behavior, descriptive labels that did not attribute any intentionality were acceptable. Noted primatologist Frans de Though the fact of animal sentience is implicit in Waal describes how, when he observed the way chimpanzees experimentation,1 researchers have traditionally downplayed would reconcile with a kiss after a fight, he was pressured to and ignored certain aspects of it, and in nonvertebrate use the phrase “postconflict reunions with mouth-to-mouth species they have often denied it altogether. While it is contact” rather than the terms “reconciliation” and “kiss.” established that vertebrate animals feel pain and respond to He goes on to state that for three decades in primatology pain drugs in much the same ways that humans do,2 emotions research, simpler explanations had to be systematically such as joy, happiness, suffering, empathy, and fear have countered before the term “reconciliation” was accepted often been ignored, despite the fact that many psychological in situations in which primates quite obviously “monitored and behavioral experiments are predicated on the assumption and repaired social relationships.”5 De Waal notes that this that animals feel these emotions and will consistently react dependence on descriptive labels, i.e., that animals can be based on these feelings.
    [Show full text]