icawc 2013 - ethical decision making - dorothy mckeegan

Ethical decision making

Dorothy E F McKeegan BVA Animal Welfare Foundation Senior Lecturer

University of Glasgow

[email protected]

Outline

• Animal ethics introduction

– Do animals have moral standing?

– Animal interests

– Ethical frameworks

• Euthanasia and value of animal life

• Ethical decision making

– Case example

Animal ethics: difficult questions

• Why should we care about animals?

• Do animals have moral status?

• What human actions towards animals are

acceptable or unacceptable?

• What is the value of animal life?

• Is painless death a harm?

Sentience and moral status

• For most of us, the conscious mental experiences of animals lie at the heart of our concern for their welfare

• Capacity to feel (pleasure and suffering) is the basis of moral status – can be harmed or benefited by the actions of others

• Note that having moral status doesn't mean having morals

– having moral status is being a moral patient

– having morals has to do with being a moral agent • e.g. new-born baby has moral status, but does not

have morals

Intrinsic moral value

Others are obliged to respect such

interests

Interests flow from these feelings

(e.g.) the interest in avoiding pain

If animals have a mental life and feelings

(e.g.) if they can feel pain

Quantity of Life

Quality of Life

• Hunger & Thirst

• Fear & Distress

• Pain, Injury & Disease

• Discomfort

• Behavioural restriction

• Pleasure

• Happiness

• Play

• Species behaviour

• Shortened life • Extended life

Animal interests

Do animals matter as much as

humans?

Equal consideration

• Animals deserve equal consideration. For example, a cat’s

suffering matters as much as a human’s suffering.

Sliding Scale

• Humans deserve full, equal consideration, but other animals

deserve consideration in proportion to their cognitive,

emotional, and social complexity. For example, a monkey’s

suffering matters less than a human’s suffering but more

than a rat’s suffering.

Sentience does not always relate to moral

status – context is important

Same animal, different moral status

Pest

No moral status

Pet Intrinsic value

Lab animal

Indirect value

The socio-zoological scale

• A hierarchy of animals — a moral ordering, based on traditions and prejudices

• People rate animals as morally more or less important, and therefore more or less worth protecting, according to a number of factors

– how useful the animal is

– how closely one collaborates with the individual animal

– how cute and cuddly the animal is

– how harmful the animal can be

– how ‘demonic’ it is perceived to be (including historically)

• Its use as a basis for animal protection can be criticized on both scientific and ethical grounds – but it is part of society

Three ethical frameworks

• Contractarian – Only humans are morally relevant, animals have no moral status

so do not create moral duties

• Utilitarian – Animals deserve equal moral consideration; in deciding what to

do, we must consider welfare consequences for animals as well

as potential benefits (for humans or animals) and try to achieve

the greatest good for the greatest number (cost-benefit)

• Animal rights – Fixed ethical rules place limits on our treatment of animals;

individual rights cannot be violated to benefit others

Applying the frameworks

Are you against hunting?

• Contractarian – “No, it is a good sport and it benefits rural

economies”

• Utilitarian – “Not in all cases. It may be a good way of

controlling a population and thus secure better welfare for

wildlife. Also, it may be a way to get meat from animals

that had good lives”

• Animal rights – “Yes, we should not kill healthy animals”

Most of us hold hybrid views containing elements of each

framework (may also depend on context)

Euthanasia, killing and the value of

animal life

Justifications for killing animals • For food

• Pest control

• Research

• Hunting

• Euthanasia

Companion animals – special status

• Difficult decision – source of dilemmas

Quality or quantity of life?

• Wide agreement that welfare (QOL) is important

• No quantity of life protection in legislation

• Debate over the value of animal life

• Evidence that quantity of animal life does matter to

(many) people

– Moral vegetarianism

– Vets unwilling to kill healthy animals

– Shelters and re-homing programmes for abandoned pets

– Advanced treatments of companion animals

– Critical attitudes to hunting

Is death a harm?

• Death is distinct from dying which may

involve suffering

• Death itself precludes all experiences,

positive or negative

• Death ordinarily considered to harm

humans

• But does a painless death harm

animals?

“Death is not a welfare issue”

John Webster

Death is not a harm - arguments

• Only quality matters

– Our only duty to animals is to ensure they live good lives,

as long as those lives last

• Nature of animal consciousness

– Animals can’t perceive/anticipate death

– Animals don’t have long term plans, hopes or desires that

can be thwarted by death

• Animals are replaceable

– In a way that humans aren’t

Death is a harm - arguments

• Lost opportunities

– Death forecloses valuable opportunities that continued

life would give

– Greater harm to kill younger animals?

• Right to life

– Animals have strong moral claim to continued life,

regardless of their ability to perceive death

• Indirect consequences – If animals are thought of as replaceable this may

negatively affect the way they are treated

BVA Euthanasia guide

• Absolutely justified euthanasia

– No better option for the animal

• Contextually justified euthanasia

– There is at least one better option but the

circumstances are such that it could not be

taken – euthanasia is the best available option

• Non-justified euthanasia

– Better alternatives are available

Ethical decision making

• Those working with companion animals

face complex situations – leading to

daunting dilemmas

• We do ethical reasoning every day –

balancing interests

• Reasoning behind our decisions is

sometimes hidden

• Actions based on ‘gut feeling’

• Easier to think of ‘influences on my

decision’ rather than ‘ethical arguments’

Case example - Jasper

• Staffordshire bull terrier, 4 years old, friendly to

adults, in shelter for 7 months

• Jasper is very aggressive towards other dogs

• After many appeals, finally a man puts in a request

of interest to rehome Jasper

• Due to potential aggression, the shelter is very

careful about who adopts him, yet the interested

party seems ideal; a single man in his thirties, who

has previous experience with Staffordshire terriers

• The man has a 6 year old daughter who does not

live with him but often stays over

• A meeting is arranged between Jasper and the

daughter and it does not go well. Jasper shows very

obvious signs of aggression and it is clear the

adoption cannot go ahead

• Should Jasper be euthanised?

Influences on the decision

For euthanasia

• Jasper presents a danger to

children (and other dogs)

• Painless death will not harm

Jasper

• Jasper’s QOL in kennels may be

suboptimal

• The shelter has limited

resources and his place could be

taken by another dog likely to be

rehomed

• The shelter’s reputation needs to

be protected

Against euthanasia

• Jasper has a right to life

• Jasper is young and healthy

• Jasper could be rehomed and

have a good life

• A vet will have to do the

euthanasia

• The kennel staff are very

attached to Jasper


be protected

Whose interests? For euthanasia


children (and other dogs) S


Jasper A


suboptimal A




rehomed O


be protected O

Against euthanasia

• Jasper has a right to life A

• Jasper is young and healthy A


have a good life A


euthanasia V


attached to Jasper O


be protected O

Ranking of interests

Animal (5 influences)

Organisation (4 influences)

Society and Individual vet (1 influence each)

• But these influences provide arguments on both sides and may some are

probably more important than others

• We need to weight the influences, or at least identify the most important

ones

Example of weighting influences

For euthanasia


children (and other dogs) 6


Jasper 4


suboptimal 6




rehomed 4


be protected 6

Against euthanasia

• Jasper has a right to life 3

• Jasper young and healthy 3


have a good life 5


euthanasia 3


attached to Jasper 4


be protected 4

0-6 where 6 is most important

Ranking of interests

Society

Organisation

Animal

Individual vet

Influences and ranking will differ between individuals

• Quality and quantity – quality more important?

• Whether death is considered a harm

• Whether animals have a right to life

(Jasper was euthanised)

Ethical decision making • Prepare (think about it in advance)

• Consider the options

– Physically available, professional, legal

• Analyse the issues

– Identify influences on the decision

– (Apply any relevant ethical rules/principles)

– Which influences are most important?

– Who’s interests do they represent?

– Who’s interests are strongest?

• (Discuss with others)

• Act (minimise the impact of the decision)

• Reflect on the decision and outcomes

• Prepare for next time

In conclusion…

• Ethical reasoning is a skill which can be practiced

and improved

• Reasoning through ethical decisions eliminates

guilt – better decisions and happier decision

makers

• Generates justifications/arguments which can be

discussed with others

• Some ethically problematic outcomes are beyond

your control – you can only choose from available

options

Thank you

for listening

[email protected]

icawc 2013 - ethical decision making - dorothy mckeegan

Lifestyle