animal ethics stuff

Okay- maybe it has been too long and I should just start a new blog- but I'm too lazy for that.

What I'm up to these days is attempting to write a thesis on animal ethics.

Basically, in seriously compacted nutshell I want to argue that consideration of the particular relationships we stand in matters in determining what our positive obligations are to animals.
Most of the animal ethics literature up to date focuses on establishing that animals matter morally by showing that they fall into the category of beings that matter morally- by possessing the relevant characteristics (sentience/ ability to feel pain, pleasure and have interests etc.)

While this is clearly an important aspect of determining who matters morally, once we have accepted that animals qualify (and most people do accept these arguments- come on- you don't actually think there is nothing wrong with torturing a kitten for no reason- do you?) there are still important and interesting questions about what this means on an everday level. Particularly what we owe to animals in light of acknowledging this moral standing.'

So, the idea that I want to explore is what role relationality plays in helping us determine our moral obligations to animals. I want to claim that we have more extensive obligations to animals that we stand in particular relationships to than we do to animals whom we do not find ourselves connected to through varieties of relationships. Relationships where we (humans) have created vulnerability and dependence in animals are those which generate the most extensive obligations- with the extensiveness of obligations corresponding to the degree of vulnerability and dependence. So, for example, on this view we would have more extensive obligations to a domestic cat than we would to a wild fox, simply in virtue of the fact that we have created much more vulnerability and dependence in domestic cats who rely on us for food and shelter than wild foxes who presumably manage well enough on their own.

This kind of relational thinking allows that we can still have obligations to less domesticated animals when and where we create vulnerability and dependence. So, if we displace the 'wild' foxes by building an urban housing development in the foxes natural territory then we find ourselves with more extensive obligations than we had before-or than we have to other foxes whom we have not displaced. It also implies extensive obligations to agricultural food/ farm animals. Not only have we made them super dependent on us (in fact, many species might not still be around if we hadn't gotten involved- which raises other interesting moral questions for another day)- but we have also bred them to be modern industrialized economic units to the detriment of their health and wellbeing- (for examples check out this report on Modern breeding technologies and farm animal welfare)

There are principled reasons to consider the interests of animal- namely, that they are sentient subjects, capable of pain and pleasure, whose lives can be made better or worse. Animals are also an interconnected part of our communities and ecosystems whose lives impact us and others in countless ways seen and unseen. The real debate is not over whether or not animals have morally salient interests, but what the extent of these interests are, what our obligations to them are, and when, if ever humans interests can justifiably trump other animal interests.

We can all agree that any sentient being has an interest in not being harmed. But animals are harmed every day, in horrible and cruel ways, for reasons that rarely if ever stand up to scrutiny.

How do we balance individual interests against the interests of a community at large? Does How do we renew the bonds that hold a community together while respecting the individual interests of its members?

Caring.

But wow do we get people to care for each other? And not just care for those we stand in mutually beneficial relationships to, but to care for all Others?

We need to respond to the face of the radical other with respect not fear. We need to become aware of ouselves as radical others to others. We say I-Thou, not I-It. We need to understand our own subjectivity through the recognition of the subjectivity and vulnerability all others around us. We need to not simply categorize others as object, as friend, as foe, as business associate, coworker, boss, colleague, neighbour, child, parent, brother, sister, lover. We stand in such relationships to be sure- but fundamentally we stand in relationships to other vulnerable subjectivities which defy such simple categorizations.

What would we be without others? Could we be without others?

When it comes to animal others- we need to stand in a relationship of I-Thou, not I-It.