WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository 1982 Unnecessary Suffering: Definition and videnceE Frank Hurnik University of Guelph Hugh Lehman University of Guelph Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/acwp_sata Part of the Animal Studies Commons, Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons, and the Other Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Hurnik, F., & Lehman, H. (1982). Unnecessary suffering: Definition and vidence.e International Journal for the Study of Animal Problems, 3(2), 131-137. 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]. 1 ! J.Hampson Comment Original/Review Articles opinion concerning matters which came experimentation can be achieved if gov­ under the Act. ernment, scientists and the reform groups continue to work together as they have Who Should Be Responsible for for the last 2 years. But if these attempts Unnecessary Suffering: justifying Experiments? fail, the militants can be expected to be­ The Current Advisory Committee, come more vociferous, polarization will Definition and Evidence in framing its suggestions to the govern­ deepen, the productive dialogue of the "middle ground" will die, and the goal ment for new legislation, also felt that Frank Hurnik experiments need to be justified, although of workable new legislation will be lost it did not recommend that the Advisory as the controversy becomes increasingly and Committee should be granted executive heated. Hugh Lehman powers, since this move might be prohib­ References ited by expense. The Committee did, how­ Although it is possible to formulate stronger moral principles than "animals should ever, draw heavily on the approach al­ An Act to Amend the Law Relating to not be made to suffer unnecessarily," there are significant grounds for doubting these ready offered by the Lords Select Com­ Cruelty, Viet. C. 77 1876. stronger principles. But the principle that underlies the dictum regarding unnecessary mittee and concluded- after consider­ Advisory Committee on Animal Experi­ suffering is generally recognized as valid, since denial of it implies that we can do what­ able debate on the matter- that the ments (1981) Report to the Secretary ever we want with animals, a conclusion that is usually considered unacceptable. A public would not be satisfied with any of State on the Framework of Legis­ determination of whether any particular instance of suffering is necessary or unneces­ new law that did not put the onus of jus­ lation to Replace the Cruelty to Ani­ sary must be based on an analysis of both the seriousness of the purpose of the act tification firmly on the shoulders of those mals Act 1876. that involves pain in animals, and its relative avoidability, as well as more concrete administering the new Act- ultimately, Animal Welfare Parliamentary Group, concerns like costs and availability of resources for a given community. the Home Secretary (Advisory Committee Animal Experimentation Advisory We can conclude, with reasonable certainty, that animals are suffering, by mak­ on Animal Experiments, 1981 ). Of course, Committee of the RSPCA, and the ing observations of changes in physiological and behavioral factors that are similar to the Home Office will probably be reluc­ Chairman of Animal Welfare Year, the changes that tell us other humans are in pain. Further, the conclusion that any ani­ ant to accept this kind of responsibility 1976 (1976) Experiments on Living mal is suffering is sound, according to scientific methodology, because this hypothe­ readily, and the scientific community Animals: Cruelty to Animals Act sis is usually the best available explanation for the observed alterations in physiology will certainly oppose this measure on 1876. or behavior. the grounds that it will hamper scientific Departmental Committee on Experi­ Zusammenfassung freedom. ments in Animals (1965). Report. It is a great pity that the more ex­ HMSO cmnd. 2641, London. Dieser Artikel behandelt die verschiedenen Auslegungen des Prinzips, dass treme animal activists, in criticizing both Dawkins, M.S. (1981) Animal Suffering. man Tiere nicht unnotig leiden lassen darf. Das Prinzip von "unnotigem Leiden" Committees for not going far enough, House of Lords. Report of the Select wird vornehmlich im Zusammenhang mit der landwirtschaftlichen Praxis behandelt, have failed to recognize the significance Committee on the Laboratory Ani­ ist aber auch fUr viele andere Sachgebiete, die in diesem Artikel nicht zur Sprache of this new approach, since it does at mals Protection Bill EHL. Vol. 1, kommen, von grosser Bedeutung. last provide a mechanism for attaining para. 55. Tiere nicht unnotig leiden zu lassen ist ein weithin anerkanntes und gultiges what the Royal Commission of 1875 Hollands, C. (1981) Compassion is the Prinzip. Die Verleugnung dieses Grundsatzes brachte unannehmbare Folgen mit sought to achieve in drafting its legisla­ Bugler. Edinburgh, MacDonald, 1981. sich, so konnte z.B. jedermann mit Tieren machen was er will. Als allgemein aner­ tion, namely, that "the progress of medi­ Labour Party (1978) Living Without kanntes Prinzip wurde es auch zur ethischen Grundlage fUr viele Gesetze, welche cal knowledge [be] compatible with the Cruelty: Labour's Charter for Animal das Wohl der Tierwelt sicherstellen (Jackson, 1978; Leavitt, 1968). Ein weiter Person­ just claims of humanity" (Departmental Protection. The Labour Party, Lon­ enkreis hat strengere ethische Prinzipien befurwortet, z.B. dass Tiere ein Recht auf Committee on Experiments in Animals, don. Freiheit haben oder dass lnteressen der Tiere denen des Menschen nicht nachstehen 1965). Royal Commission on the Practice of und somit gleichermassen berucksichtigt werden mussen (Rachels, 1976; Singer, CRAE has recognized that this goal Subjecting Live Animals to Experi­ 1975). Es gibt jedoch bedeutende Grunde, solche Stellungnahmen, die sich uber die can only be attained through administra­ ments (1876) Report. Parliamentary in diesem Artikel besprochenen Prinzipien hinwegsetzen, anzugreifen. Da jedoch tive means and that, at the same time, Papers, 1978 C1397, vol. xli. das Prinzip, so wie es hier vertreten wird, auf keinen ernsthaften Wiederstand stosst any new law must be flexible enough to Ryder, R.D. (1976) Victims of Science. und die Verleugnung desselben weitherum zu Konflikten mit dem Gesetz fuhrt, permit progressive strengthening of its Davis, Poynter. provisions as the need arises. This objec­ Vines, R.S. (1976) Letter to New Scientist, Dr. Hurnik is Professor in the Department of Animal Science at the University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario. tive of a balanced view toward animal vol. 588, p. 588. Dr. Lehman is Professor of Philosophy at University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario. /NT 1 STUD ANIM PROB 3(2) 1982 130 /NT 1 STUD ANIM PROB 3(2) 1982 131 II' I i F. Hurnik and H. Lehman- Unnecessary Suffering Original Article F. Hurnik and H. Lehman- Unnecessary Suffering Original Article bekennen sich die Autoren zum Prinzip, dass man Tiere nicht unnotig leiden lassen necessary and unnecessary suffering? A determination of whether suffer­ darf. Kl.. d 2. How do we know when an animal ing can be considered necessary or justi­ In der Meinung der Autoren muss dieses Bekenntnis auf weiterer arung ~r is suffering? fied is clearly related to an examination Behandlung selbst begrundet sein, denn die verschiedenen Auswirkungen/Folgen fur of the purpose for which the suffering in das Tier konnen allein aufgrund des Prinzips nicht festgelegt werd~n. Ob':ohl das Necessary Versus Unnecessary question is caused. Suffering that is Prinzip bereits als Crundlage fur viele Cesetze verwendet wurde, 1st v:en1~ ge:an Suffering brought about merely to gratify the sa­ d wor en, de n Begriff des "unnotigen Leidens" klarzustellen. Erforderl1ch.d b 1std eme· distic pleasures of some human being is What is unnecessary suffering? To klare Unterscheidung zwischen notwendigem und unnotigem Le1 en. _A er ~ 1s_t unjustified. Suffering that is unlikely to answer this question, let us consider the noch ein zweites Problem: diese Klarstellung kann nich jene Komplikat1o~en ell~l­ add significantly to the well-being of the possible connotations of the term "un­ nieren die sich auch dann ergeben, wenn man unnotiges Leiden verme1den will. human community or to that of animals necessary." An event might be said to be Denn :'unnotiges Leiden" kann nur mit grundlicher Kenntnis uber das Le1den ~er is, for the most part, unjustified. Further­ necessary if it is the result of causal fac­ Tiere und wann Tiere leiden verhindert werden. In diesem Artikel werden be1de more, whether suffering is justified is tors over which people have no control. diese Probleme behandelt: clearly related to the avoidability of the Thus, one possible definition of "unnec­ suffering. In this respect, one of the def­ 1. Wie unterscheiden wir notiges und unnotiges Leiden? essary suffering" is: 2. Wie wissen wir, wann ein Tier leidet? initions of unnecessary suffering that we rejected above is, in part, on the right • Suffering is unnecessary if it is track. We should not say that suffering avoidable. Another connotation of the Moral Principles and Animals pie under consideration in this paper. was necessary suffering if the purpose term "unnecessary" relates to purpose: However, since the denial of the princi­ for which the suffering