DOCSLIB.ORG

Stipulating Moral Status Elizabeth P

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Stipulating Moral Status Elizabeth P Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2006 Stipulating Moral Status Elizabeth P. (Elizabeth Peisinger) Kanon Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES STIPULATING MORAL STATUS By ELIZABETH P. KANON A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Philosophy in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2006 Copyright © 2006 Elizabeth P. Kanon All Rights Reserved The members of the Committee Approve the dissertation of Elizabeth P. Kanon defended on Peter Dalton Professor Directing Dissertation Aline Kalbian Outside Committee Member Maria Morales Committee Member Approved: J. Piers Rawling, Chair, Department of Philosophy Joseph Travis, Dean, Department of Arts and Sciences The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In memory of Cody. I wish to thank my husband, Gregg Kanon, for his love, honesty, support and deft advice throughout this endeavor. I am appreciative of Peter Dalton’s painstaking assistance in completing this project. A special thanks to John Kanon, Jay Wagoner, Eve Caraveo, Robert Audi, Russ Dancy and Donald Crosby. And a special thanks to my non­human friends: Christopher, Momma Kitty, Buddy, Spatz, Mr. White, Sir William Lucky and Candide. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT v CHAPTER ONE 1 The Problem 1 Human Uses of Animals 3 Moral Worth and Moral Status 8 Moral Consideration and Treatment 10 Three Approaches in the Philosophical Literature 12 CHAPTER TWO 14 Kant’s Moral Theory as it Relates to Establishing Moral Worth 14 Kant’s Conception of Moral Worth and Its Implications for Animals 18 Why Give Animals Indirect Duties? 23 Is Kant Correct in Making a Distinction Between Direct and Indirect Duties? 28 Conclusion 34 CHAPTER THREE 35 Regan on a Moral Theory 35 Regan’s Rejection of Competing Moral Theories 40 Regan’s Rights View 45 Regan’s Conception of Moral Worth and its Implications for Animals 46 Questions Regan’s Position Raises 50 Conclusion 57 CHAPTER FOUR 58 Singer’s Moral Theory as it Relates to Establishing Moral Status 58 Singer’s Conception of Moral Status and Its Implications for Animals 66 Questions Singer’s Position Raises 67 Conclusion 81 CHAPTER FIVE 82 Feminist Recognition of New Perspectives 82 Perfect­Relationship View: A Hybrid Thesis 83 Durkheim on Division of Labor 91 Objections and Replies to Division of Labor 95 Conclusion 97 CITED SOURCES 99 BIBLIOGRAPHY 101 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 105 iv ABSTRACT Moral worth is determined by moral agents. How is such a determination made? Western philosophical thought originally demarcated between human and all else. Some contemporary writers seek to extend moral worth to animals, and still others seek to grant ecosystems such worth. This dissertation will consider three predominant writers on the subject of moral worth: Immanuel Kant, Tom Regan and Peter Singer. After consideration of each writer’s strengths and weaknesses, a hybrid view will be presented. The perfect­relationship view extends moral worth to all species. This view utilizes the strengths of Kant, Regan and Singer; as well as, adapting literature of J. Baird Callicott and Emile Durkheim to provide a pragmatic approach to determining moral worth. v CHAPTER ONE THE PROBLEM Animals have moral status or moral worth. 1 It is morally acceptable to use animals to further important human needs. Most people agree with both statements. However, these two beliefs seem inconsistent. There are ways to avoid holding two incompatible beliefs. One solution is to abandon one of the beliefs. Another is to clarify what the claims actually mean. What is it to say something has, or does not have, moral worth? What are “important” human needs? By clarifying terms, it may be possible to show that the two beliefs are not inconsistent. One standard philosophical approach resolves incompatibility between beliefs by removing the inconsistency. This is accomplished by either applying the concepts in an attempt to explain away the inconsistency or formulating theoretical support for the concepts which demonstrates an underlying coherence. Immanuel Kant, Tom Regan and Peter Singer attempt to resolve the seemingly inconsistent natures of these two beliefs. I will utilize their previous work in this area to form a more coherent grounding; making these two beliefs consistent. It is important to establish why these two beliefs have an initial prima facie inconsistency. Our usual notion of moral status entails that some moral consideration is guaranteed by its possessor. Our common acceptance of how we put animals to use suggests that animals do not possess moral status. Yet most people, when asked, claim to believe that animals do possess moral worth. There is incoherence in how these two beliefs are commonly held and how most humans, incognizant of many animals’ plights, commonly allow some seemingly inhumane treatment of animals. An approach taken by many animal liberationists on moral status entails the further belief that if a being possesses such status it also possesses natural rights. The term ‘natural’ is used, since rights are grounded in the nature of the being which possesses them. In the Declaration of Independence, America’s founders claimed that these rights were self­evident truths. They professed that all humans were equally endowed with the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This seems to imply 1 In this chapter, I will use the words status and worth as being interchangeable. These terms are technical terms with distinct meanings, each dependant upon the theories in which they are contained. As I establish which theorist uses which term, the technical differences will become clearer. 1 that beings which display certain natures are entitled to these rights; beings failing to do so are denied. Regan’s “No Trespassing” sign is placed upon the bearer of these natural rights. Rights usually entail constraints. Natural rights can be understood as entailing a duty of noninterference. One is expected to restrain himself from interfering with another’s pursuits, unless requested to do so. Seemingly, if moral status is, as Regan suggests, a declaration of noninterference; then animals must either be denied moral status or else granted rights. This dichotomy emphasizes the apparent inconsistency in the two beliefs: that animals have moral status and animals may be used to further important human needs. If animals have moral status then using them for food, clothing, entertainment, education, etc. seems to deny their right to noninterference. Perhaps one might claim that animals have moral status, only not equal to humans. This might permit the continued use of animals. However, most people are unaware of the treatment animals receive; such treatment that seems to indicate that animals have no moral status, particularly animals used for food or science. If made aware, many humans would find the treatment repugnant if not immoral. Once made aware of the plight of animals, many humans would reconsider which products they would choose for food, cosmetics and medicine. This is the reason many organizations, such as the SPCA, PETA and ALF, try to make news, to bring such awareness. These groups’ methods are beyond the scope of this discussion. However, moral status is not exclusively tied to rights. Utilitarian theory denies the notion of individual rights, as these can conflict with the maximizing of utility. This ethical approach may concede that natural rights are a useful fiction, but if the greater good is served by denying an individual’s rights then it is morally justified to do so. For utilitarians, moral status is merely instrumental in maximizing the happiness quotient. Given their conception of how moral status is ascertained, it is apparent that rights are not necessary for the pursuit of utility. Specifics regarding the utilitarian approach to moral status will be offered in the fourth chapter. However, it is possible for a utilitarian position to see the two beliefs as being incompatible. If the utilitarian position takes a strong view that moral status is granted equally to beings capable of suffering, then it follows that animals have moral status equal to humans. This strong stance would 2 preclude using animals in such a way that causes animals to suffer, even if such use would further important human needs. HUMAN USES OF ANIMALS Human use of animals extends from benign to maleficent. Domesticated pets are used for companionship. Wild animals are studied and catalogued to further knowledge. Some animals are used for entertainment. Both domesticated and wild animals are used as food sources. Animals have been used to further knowledge about humans. At what point in this list does the use of animals become more akin to abuse? It seems that if animals possess moral worth, then any use that disrespects their moral worth ought to be disallowed. Using animals for companionship does not seem to be a case of misuse. In this instance, both the human and the animal gain from the relationship. The human is provided with social interaction and unconditional love, basic human needs. Animals, too, receive these benefits, as well as shelter and regular feeding. Yet some humans have domesticated pets, dogs in particular, who are expected to work for their care. These animals do not receive the social interaction granted other pets. Instead, these animals are raised and kept isolated in order to guarantee that they will perform their “job.” These job descriptions range from fighting to security. I am not suggesting that these animals are necessarily ill­treated. I am suggesting that they do not receive the benefits I originally claimed domesticated pets gain from their relationship with humans—namely, social interaction and unconditional love.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Use of Animals in Sports
    Existence, Breeding, a,nd Rights: The Use of Animals in Sports Donald Scherer Bowling Green State University Against these lines of argument one frequently encounters a certain objection. It is argued that since the animals for fighting, hunting and racing exist only because they have been bred for such human uses, human beings are justified in so treating them. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate this line ofobjection, or to speak more precisely, to evaluate the two distinct objections implicit in this line. For the objection may be either that (l) the present uses of the animals are justified because they are better for the animals than the Standardly, philosophical arguments about the alternative, namely non-existence, or that quality of treatment human beings owe nonhuman animals! rest on two bases. Peter Singer is famous (2) breeding an animal for a purpose gives the for arguing from the capacity of animals to feel pain breeders (transferable) rights over what they to the conclusion that since almost none of the pain have bred. human beings cause animals is necessary, almost none of it is morally justifiable (Singer, 1989, pp. 78-79). I shall pursue these alternatives sequentially. Singer rests his case on the premise that who suffers pain does not affect the badness of the suffering, so The Value of Existence that, without strong justification, the infliction of pain is universally wrong (Ibid., pp. 77-78). Tom Regan is The strength ofthe first form ofthe objection rests on equally famous for his argument that the beliefs and a common intuition comparing the values of existence desires which normal one year-old mammals clearly and non-existence.
    [Show full text]
  • Baby Reindeer Pdf, Epub, Ebook
    BABY REINDEER PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Yu-hsuan Huang | 12 pages | 02 Aug 2016 | CHRONICLE BOOKS | 9781452146614 | English | California, United States Baby Reindeer PDF Book Bureau of Education. Alice in Wonderland. Baby Mickey Halloween Costume M. Mongalla gazelle E. Download as PDF Printable version. According to the Igloolik Oral History Project IOHP , "Caribou antlers provided the Inuit with a myriad of implements, from snow knives and shovels to drying racks and seal-hunting tools. It was first domesticated in Siberia and Scandinavia. Finally, the North American caribou has not been domesticated and is generally a wild animal. Because of the continuing decline and expected changes in long-term weather patterns, this subspecies is at imminent risk of extinction. A complex set of terms describes each part of the antler and relates it to its various uses". Restrictions apply. Retrieved 11 October These cows are healthier than those without antlers. However, Geist and others considered it valid. Allen, [Notes 2] [34] [35]. These can, with some certainty, be dated to the Migration Period , although it is not unlikely that they have been in use since the Stone Age. In the winter, the pads shrink and tighten, exposing the rim of the hoof, which cuts into the ice and crusted snow to keep it from slipping. Scotland on Sunday. Choose options. Retrieved 17 December Morris Costumes. Carl Linnaeus chose the name Rangifer for the reindeer genus, which Albertus Magnus used in his De animalibus , fol. Mickey Mouse. The reindeer is the only deer that has been domesticated. Liber 22, Cap. There are dozens of herds of wild caribou in the state of Alaska and their population there is estimated to be more than one million strong.
    [Show full text]
  • Universidade Federal De Santa Catarina Centro De Ciências Jurídicas Programa De Pós-Graduação Em Direito
    1 UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE SANTA CATARINA CENTRO DE CIÊNCIAS JURÍDICAS PROGRAMA DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM DIREITO GABRIELA FRANZISKA SCHOCH SANTOS CARVALHO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION FOR ANIMALS IN BRAZIL AND IN SWITZERLAND: Cruelty, Well-Being and Dignity DISSERTAÇÃO DE MESTRADO Florianópolis 2018 1 Gabriela Franziska Schoch Santos Carvalho THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION FOR ANIMALS IN BRAZIL AND IN SWITZERLAND: Cruelty, Well-Being and Dignity Dissertação submetida ao Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito da Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina para a obtenção do Grau de Mestre em Direito. Orientadora: Profª. Drª. Letícia Albuquerque Florianópolis 2018 2 3 5 7 To my parents Für meine Eltern 9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have supported my work on this thesis and have in some way contributed to it. First and foremost, I express my gratitude to my thesis supervisor, Prof. Dr. Letícia Albuquerque. She has encouraged and accompanied my research from the beginning. Her support, generosity and friendship have been invaluable. Prof. Dr. Fernanda Luiza Fontoura de Medeiros (UNILASSALE), Prof. Dr. Marita Giménez-Candela (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) and Prof. Dr. Paula Cals Brügger Neves (CCB/UFSC) composed the Thesis Committee. I would like to thank them for their valuable comments. I also would like to thank Prof. Dr. Everton das Neves Gonçalves (PPGD/UFSC) for presiding the Thesis Committee. I am grateful to the dean of the Post-Graduate Program in Law at the Federal University of Santa Catarina (PPGD), Prof. Arno Dal Ri Jr., PhD, as well as the academic and administrative staff for welcoming me at UFSC, and to Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Animals As Vulnerable Subjects: Beyond Interest-Convergence, Hierarchy, and Property
    \\server05\productn\L\LCA\16-1\LCA103.txt unknown Seq: 1 22-JAN-10 12:35 ANIMALS AS VULNERABLE SUBJECTS: BEYOND INTEREST-CONVERGENCE, HIERARCHY, AND PROPERTY By Ani B. Satz* This Article presents a new paradigm, premised on the equal protection principle, for the legal regulation of human interactions with domestic ani- mals: Equal Protection of Animals (EPA). EPA combines the insights of vul- nerability theorists with the equal protection principle and capability theory to create a mechanism for recognizing the equal claims of human and non- human animals to protections against suffering. Under such an approach, domestic animals—like humans—have claims to food, hydration, shelter, bodily integrity (including avoiding pain), companionship, and the ability to exercise and to engage in natural behaviors of movement. Existing animal welfare and anti-cruelty laws, despite their stated pur- poses, fail to protect animals adequately. This Article identifies the ontology of the problem as interest-convergence, famously described by Derrick Bell in the desegregation context. The privileged (humans in this case) protect the disadvantaged (animals) only when their interests align. Because humans profit economically and socially from the exploitation of animals, interests often diverge. When this divergence occurs, all protections for ani- mals are placed in jeopardy. Unlike protections for other disadvantaged groups, there is no constitutional or other legal floor guarding the basic lib- erties of animals. Interest convergence results in what I term “legal gerry- mandering for human interest,” or the redrawing of the natural baseline of * Ani B. Satz 2009. Ani B. Satz is an Associate Professor at Emory University School of Law, Rollins School of Public Health, and the Center for Ethics.
    [Show full text]
  • CRS Report for Congress
    CRS Report for Congress Humane Treatment of Farm Animals: Overview and Selected Issues Geoffrey S. Becker Specialist Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division December 6, 1995 h CRS, 1 Congressional Research Se~iceCne Libmy of Congress I Humane Treatment of Farm Animals: Overview and Selected Issues SUMMARY Animal protection activists in the United States are seeking modifications (or even curtailment) of many practices long considered acceptable and necessary to animal agriculture. Examples include rearing large numbers of livestock and poultry in close confinement; performing surgery such as tail-docking or beak- trimming; housing layer hens in cages; and isolating veal calves in crates. Currently, no Federal law prescribes standards for on-farm handling and care of animals, although two statutes do address the humane transport and slaughter of livestock. A11 States have anti-cruelty laws, which can--but do not always--cover farm animals, Many States regulate the transport and slaughter of farm animals, but few if any address on-farm activities. Recent surveys suggest that most people (and many animal protection groups) still support agricultural uses of animals -- but many also appear to support at least some Government regulation to insure humane treatment. Producers maintain that they understand their animals' welfare needs and address them. They express concern that efforts by poorly informed critics could lead to the imposition of mandatory regulations harmful to producers and animals alike. Support for science, education, and voluntary guidelines are more effective ways of assuring animal welfare, they believe. But many animal protection groups contend that producer efforts fall short, in part because today's intensive farming systems perpetuate standard practices that are harmful to animals' well-being.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Ethics and Science Fall 2009 – 4:10-5:25 MW – Room 213 Bolton Hall
    PHIL 489/689 – Special Topics: Animal Ethics and Science Fall 2009 – 4:10-5:25 MW – Room 213 Bolton Hall Instructor: Gary Varner Associate Professor of Philosophy Office: 309D Bolton Office hours: 12:00-2:00 MW & by appointment Phone: 845-8499 Email: [email protected] Web page: http://philosophy.tamu.edu/~gary/ General description: This course will introduce students to the main philosophical theories in animal ethics and survey the ways scientific research on animal consciousness and cognition informs (or could someday inform) their application to various animals and various human uses of animals. Philosophical theories covered will include animal welfare (utilitarianism), animal rights (rights as “trump cards” against utilitarian thinking), neo-Cartesianism (the view that non-human animals are not phenomenally conscious), and anthropocentrism (the view that non-human animals don’t “count,” morally speaking, even if they are conscious). Philosophers read will probably include Peter Singer, Tom Regan, Bernard Rollin, Peter Carruthers, and Carl Cohen. Related scientific research discussed will probably include all of the following: pain and nociception, mirror self-recognition, language acquisition, episodic memory and autonoetic consciousness, and “using a ‘theory of mind’.” Designed for students majoring in the life sciences, the course assumes no previous exposure to philosophical theories or methodology. Students must, however, be committed to studying alternative theories via reasoned debate informed by the best relevant empirical research currently available and adhering to such usual standards of classroom etiquette as responding to others’ positions in a respectful way, not dominating the discussion, and so on. Prerequisite: Permission of instructor. Course requirements: Letter grades recorded for the course will be based on a weighted average of the following components.
    [Show full text]
  • Living Property: a New Status for Animals Within the Legal System David Favre
    Marquette Law Review Volume 93 | Issue 3 Article 3 Living Property: A New Status for Animals Within the Legal System David Favre Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation David Favre, Living Property: A New Status for Animals Within the Legal System, 93 Marq. L. Rev. 1021 (2010). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol93/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LIVING PROPERTY: A NEW STATUS FOR ANIMALS WITHIN THE LEGAL SYSTEM DAVID FAVRE* This Article develops the proposition that non-human animals can possess and exercise legal rights. This proposal is supported by the fact that our legal system already accommodates a number of animal interests within the criminal anti-cruelty laws and civil trust laws. To make a more coherent package of all animal-related public policy issues, it is useful to acknowledge the existence of a fourth category of property, living property. Once separated out from other property, a new area of jurisprudence will evolve, providing legal rights for at least some animals. This Article establishes why animals should receive consideration within the legal system, which animals should be focused upon, what some of the legal rights might be, and how the traditional rules of property law will be modified to accommodate the presence of this new category of property.
    [Show full text]
  • The Emerging Policy Debate Over Wildlife Contraception
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USDA National Wildlife Research Center Contraception in Wildlife Management Symposia October 1993 Thunder in the Distance: The Emerging Policy Debate Over Wildlife Contraception R. Bruce Gill Michael W. Miller Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nwrccontraception Part of the Environmental Health and Protection Commons Gill, R. Bruce and Miller, Michael W., "Thunder in the Distance: The Emerging Policy Debate Over Wildlife Contraception" (1993). Contraception in Wildlife Management. 9. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nwrccontraception/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the USDA National Wildlife Research Center Symposia at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Contraception in Wildlife Management by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Thunder in the Distance: The Emerging Policy Debate Over Wildlife Contraception R. Bruce Gill and Michael W. Miller Abstract: Wildlife contraception is only now emerging as a as when, where, and in which circumstances managers will wildlife policy issue It will emerge into a sociopolitical LISP the contraceptive tool. In this context, wildlife environment that is already polarized from a clash of contraception will be regarded as a "mixed bag." Given the ideologies. The wildlife conservation/hunting community nature and potential polarity of the wildlife contraception strives to preserve the status quo while animal welfare and issue, wildlife agencies will have to behave proactively by animal rights activists struggle to change wildlife oroiectina themselves into their future. Currentlv. wildlife management philosophy and practice to conform to their agencie;respond to many policy challenges reactively and respective beliefs.
    [Show full text]
  • Becoming a Creaturekind Partner Community: Basic Overview of Changing Food Policies
    Becoming a CreatureKind Partner Community: Basic Overview of Changing Food Policies The use of animals for food massively dominates all other human uses of animals, yet farmed animals—the animals on our plates—are conspicuously absent from the vast majority of Christian conversations about stewardship, creation care, and the environment. CreatureKind Partner Communities distinguish themselves as places where people want to learn more about animals as a faith concern and take action to improve the lives of farmed animals. Worldwide, more than 70 billion fellow land creatures and up to 7 trillion sea animals are killed for food each year. Most animal products—meat, milk, and eggs—are produced on farms where it is impossible for creatures to flourish, and in systems that require both humans and animals pay a high price for the ability to buy cheap meat. Often, animals used for food are subject to painful physical mutilations, miserable living conditions, and traumatic deaths. Overconsumption of animal products has led to widespread environmental damages and uses a disproportionate share of Earth’s resources. Globally, industrial animal farming now uses 78% of the world’s agricultural land, diminishes wild animal populations, and worsens human food and water security throughout the world. Increasing pressures on farmers to produce high quantities at low costs make it harder for farmers to provide improved welfare for farmed animals. Economic pressures also contribute to worker injustice, higher rates of farmer suicide, and a decline in diversified farms. Workers within the industrial farming system endure long hours, frequent injuries, and unjust working conditions. The increased use of antibiotics contributes to the rise of so-called “superbugs,” and overconsumption of animal products is linked to a host of human ailments.
    [Show full text]
  • The Necessity of the Use of Non-Human Primate Models in Research
    THE NECESSITY OF THE USE OF NON-HUMAN PRIMATE MODELS IN RESEARCH Working Group April 18-19, 2017 Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics 1809 Ashland Ave Baltimore, MD 21205 CONTENTS 1. GOALS AND APPROACH 2. MEMBERS 3. AGENDA FOR APRIL 2017 MEETING 4. LOGISTICAL INFORMATION 5. RECOMMENDED READINGS A. REPORTS (EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES) B. ON NECESSITY C. ON THE STATUS OF THE USE OF NHPs IN RESEARCH D. THE USEFULNESS OF NHP MODELS 1. GOALS AND APPROACH GOALS AND APPROACH The use of animals in biomedical research continues to be a topic of intense interest as well as a focus of discussion in the scientific community, among government regulators, and by interested groups and organizations. In particular, the use of non-human primates (NHPs) continues to receive intense attention, with both strong defense of the importance of such research as well as fierce opposition to the use of NHPs as research models. The use of these animals also presents some unique ethical issues, particularly in light of more recent studies of animal behavior and cognition that reveal more information about how animals think, communicate and function in social groups. To help address the issues of the use of NHPs in research, we are convening this working group to examine the science, ethics, and policy aspects of the use of NHPs in biomedical and behavioral research and testing, with the goal of identifying consensus findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The focus of the working group will be to evaluate the current and potential future uses of NHP models, drawing on the approach used in the 2011 IOM Report “Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Assessing the Necessity” (IOM, 2011).
    [Show full text]
  • Interspecies Sustainability to Ensure Animal Protection: Lessons from the Thoroughbred Racing Industry
    sustainability Article Interspecies Sustainability to Ensure Animal Protection: Lessons from the Thoroughbred Racing Industry Iris M. Bergmann School of Geosciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia; [email protected] Received: 20 August 2019; Accepted: 30 September 2019; Published: 8 October 2019 Abstract: There is a disconnect between dominant conceptions of sustainability and the protection of animals arising from the anthropocentric orientation of most conceptualisations of sustainability, including sustainable development. Critiques of this disconnect are primarily based in the context of industrial animal agriculture and a general model of a species-inclusive conception of sustainability has yet to emerge. The original contribution of this article is two-fold: First, it develops a theoretical framework for interspecies sustainability. Second, it applies this to a case study of the thoroughbred racing industry. Interviews were conducted with thoroughbred industry and animal advocacy informants in the US, Australia and Great Britain. While industry informants claim thoroughbred welfare is seminal for industry sustainability, they adopt a market-oriented anthropocentric conception of sustainability and do not consider animal welfare a sustainability domain in its own right. Animal advocacy informants demonstrate a deeper understanding of welfare but some express discomfort about linking sustainability, welfare and racing. Eight analytical layers have been identified in the discourse in the interface of sustainability and animal protection, of which two have transformational potential to advance interspecies sustainability. Interspecies sustainability urgently needs to be advanced to ensure animal protection in the sustainability transition, and to not leave the defining of animal welfare and sustainability to animal industries. Keywords: sustainability; interspecies sustainability; animal welfare; animal agency; anthropocentrism; interspecies justice; relationality; ecocentrism; naturalness; animal advocacy 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Welfare Policy, Emergency Action Plan, and Evacuation Plan for Livestock and Horses
    NEBRASKA STATE FAIR Animal Welfare Policy, Emergency Action Plan, and Evacuation Plan for Livestock and Horses Adopted by Nebraska State Fair Board Livestock Committee STATEMENT OF ANIMAL CARE “Animal Rights” vs. “Animal Welfare”! In today’s predominantly urban society, the public’s contact with animals, especially farm animals, is limited. As a result of this separation, both adults and children may be confused about the needs and roles of domestic animals in society. In addition, the number of animal rights groups has increased drastically. The ultimate goal of these animal rights activists is the elimination of all human uses of animals. Some of them even think that animals have humanhood. The Nebraska State Fair is a showplace for animal agriculture and animal care for the state. The Nebraska State Fair considers ourselves animal welfare advocates and requires the humane treatment of all animals on the grounds. All animals and livestock shown, housed or displayed shall receive care that is humane, healthful, stress free and consistent with public expectations. Cruelty, neglect or indifference to animal comfort and welfare will not be tolerated and will constitute immediate disqualification and grounds for removal from the premises. Ample feed and clean fresh water will be provided to all livestock, horses, poultry and other animals consistent with sound animal husbandry practices and with rules and regulations set by the Nebraska State Fair Board. All animals entering the grounds for display or competition must meet all State of Nebraska and Nebraska State Fair Health Requirements. The environment in which animals are kept must be clean and sanitary at all times.
    [Show full text]