Animal Ethics

Slides for an Introduction to Philosophy course at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC, Canada.

These slides talk about Elizabeth Harman's articled called “The moral significance of animal pain and animal death” (2011), as well as Christopher Belshaw's article called "Death, Pain, and Animal Life" (2015). The last few slides talk about the film Angry Inuk, by documentary filmmaker Alethea Arnaquq-Baril.

philosophy
ethics
animal rights
Harman
Belshaw

Transcript

1. Animal Ethics
   PHIL 102, UBC, Christina Hendricks
   Spring 2018
   Except images licensed
   otherwise, this presentation
   is licensed CC BY 4.0
   

   View Slide

2. A question for this week
   Many believe it is morally wrong to cause animals
   significant pain without important moral
   justification.
   Is it also wrong to painlessly kill them in the prime
   of life without important moral justification?
   http://is.gd/phil102animals
   

   View Slide

3. Elizabeth Harman
   Article: “The moral significance of animal pain and
   animal death” (2011)
   A “surprising claim”
   underlying the
   argument that
   factory farming is
   wrong but humane
   killing of animals for
   food is not
   (on doc camera)
   Photo by Rachel Lees on Unsplash
   

   View Slide

4. Arguing for the surprising claim
   How might one argue for the first and second
   parts of this claim?
   Utilitarian reasons?
   • Jeremy Bentham,
   John Stuart Mill
   Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, public domain on Wikimedia Commons
   

   View Slide

5. Peter Singer’s view
   Equal consideration of interests
   Speciesism
   Peter Singer by Chatham House, licensed CC BY 2.0 on Wikimedia Commons
   

   View Slide

6. Structure of Harman’s article
   1.Lay out “surprising claim”
   2.Provide argument against it (p. 728)
   o Your view of these premises
   3.Reply to criticisms of that argument: first,
   second, fourth views (we’re skipping the third)
   o Argue against these criticisms of the argument in (2)
   

   View Slide

7. First criticism
   Painlessly killing animals in the prime of life deprives them
   of a benefit, but doesn’t harm them.
   Epicurus vs. Nagel
   How does Harman reply?
   Does painless
   killing harm humans
   or animals?
   

   View Slide

8. Second criticism
   Death is bad only if one has desires & plans for the future;
   animals don’t have these so death can’t be bad for
   them (nor harm them).
   How might one criticize this argument?
   How does Harman do so?
   Pig images one and two, licensed CC0 on pixabay.com
   

   View Slide

9. Fourth criticism
   Death is not a significant harm to animals because they
   have only a weak psychological connection to their
   future lives.
   Pig images one and two, licensed CC0 on pixabay.com
   

   View Slide

10. Harman’s reply to 4th criticism
    Tommy
    • No surgery: healthy 5 yrs
    then suffer horribly then die
    • Surgery: suffer less for 2
    weeks than will in 5 years,
    then healthy, normal life
    Bull and horse images licensed CC0 on pixabay.com
    Billy
    • No surgery: steadily suffer
    more & more over a few
    months then die
    • Surgery: suffer more for 2
    weeks than if no surgery but
    then healthy, normal life
    

    View Slide

11. Harman’s reply to 4th criticism
    Tommy
    • No surgery: healthy 5 yrs
    then suffer horribly then die
    • Surgery: suffer less for 2
    weeks than will in 5 years,
    then healthy after that
    Bull and horse images licensed CC0 on pixabay.com
    Billy
    • No surgery: steadily suffer
    more & more over a few
    months then die
    • Surgery: suffer more for 2
    weeks than if no surgery but
    then healthy after that
    How does Harman use this to
    criticize 4th view?
    

    View Slide

12. Harman’s reply to 4th criticism
    Tommy
    • No surgery: healthy 5 yrs
    then suffer horribly then die
    • Surgery: suffer less for 2
    weeks than will in 5 years,
    then healthy after that
    Bull and horse images licensed CC0 on pixabay.com
    Billy
    • No surgery: steadily suffer
    more & more over a few
    months then die
    • Surgery: suffer more for 2
    weeks than if no surgery but
    then healthy after that
    Both surgeries permissible, but
    4th view can’t explain why
    Tommy’s would be
    

    View Slide

13. Summary
    • Harman: criticisms of her argument against the
    ”surprising claim” fail, so her argument holds
    oWe have strong reasons not to (a) cause intense
    pain to, or (b) painlessly kill animals in the prime of
    life: doing so is wrong unless justified by other moral
    considerations.
    • Any arguments you gave on google doc not
    discussed by her?
    

    View Slide

14. BELSHAW, “DEATH, PAIN, AND
    ANIMAL LIFE” (2015)
    

    View Slide

15. Overall points
    Showing that painless death is bad for or harms animals
    (Harman’s argument) isn’t enough
    • Need to show that this is a harm that matters morally
    • Painless animal death does not matter morally
    Photo by jamie r. mink on Unsplash
    Desert image licensed CC0 on pixabay.com
    

    View Slide

16. Animals & Infants
    Death is bad in some sense for the one who dies…
    But in a way that matters morally only if “it deprives its victim
    of a life that, to the victim, matters,” if they have
    “categorical desires” (37)
    Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash Photo by chuttersnap on Unsplash Photo by Heather Mount on Unsplash
    Like the “second view”
    Harman addresses
    

    View Slide

17. Criticisms of the above?
    • What does this say about the deaths of those w/o a
    sense of their future lives?
    • How does Harman respond to this kind of view?
    • What are the capacities of animals regarding future life?
    Jellyfish, Dog, Dolphin images licensed CC0 on pixabay.com
    

    View Slide

18. Do animals’ lives or pleasure
    have intrinsic value?
    Even if painless death isn’t bad for them in a way that
    matters, is it bad in some intrinsic sense? (40)
    • What might this mean?
    • Belshaw says problematic consequences—agree?
    A gaggle of goslings, by USFWS Mountain-Prairie,
    licensed CC BY 2.0 on Flickr
    Crowd, by James Cridland, licensed CC BY 2.0 on Flickr
    

    View Slide

19. Death is actually good for animals
    My reconstructed argument for this (doc camera)
    Cat examples Wild animals
    Photo by Kamonnat Onnom on Unsplash Photo by Steve Harvey on Unsplash
    

    View Slide

20. Summary Harman & Belshaw
    • Harman: painless death is a significant harm to
    animals
    • Belshaw: painless death of (many) animals is not
    a harm that matters morally; further, death may
    often be better than life
    • Implications for painless killing of animals for
    food—Harman’s view in another article
    

    View Slide

21. INUIT, SEAL HUNTING, SEAL PRODUCTS
    BAN
    Althea Arnaquq-Baril, Angry Inuk
    

    View Slide

22. Some background
    • 1972: US Marine Mammal Protection Act
    • 1983: ban on products from certain seal pups in Europe
    o Exemption for Indigenous peoples
    • 1987: Canada bans hunting of certain kinds of seal
    pups
    • 2009: EU vote to ban import of seal products
    o Exemption for Indigenous peoples
    

    View Slide

23. Animal welfare concerns
    • Stunned &
    wounded animals
    not getting quick
    death
    • Speed of hunt and
    firing guns from
    boats worsens this
    • Difficult & too costly
    to monitor
    commercial hunts
    for rule violations Harp seal image by Gene Herzberg, licensed CC BY 2.0 on Flickr
    

    View Slide

24. Arguments from film
    The following were discussed in class:
    • If can’t sell seal products, can’t make enough money
    to live
    o Why doesn’t the indigenous exemption to the EU ban
    address this? (not discussed in class)
    • Hunting seals and selling products is sustainable; other
    ways of making money there are not
    • False, romanticized view of Inuit just needing to hunt
    seals for “subsistence”—only for food to eat; ignores
    how they’re part of international market & need
    money for other things
    

    View Slide

25. Suggestions for what could
    be done?
    Can you think of any way to address the concerns of
    both sides in this issue?
    Shared google doc in class…
    

    View Slide

26. Credits
    Cow photo on title slide by Ryan Song on unsplash.com
    All icons not attributed were purchased with a
    subscription to The Noun Project.
    

    View Slide