By: Caitlin McAllister
What Constitutes Abuse?
The discussion of what is right and wrong when it comes to animals dates back to ancient times. At first glance, it may not seem like a topic worthy of discussion, the abuse of animals is widely held as being horribly wrong. But this then begs the question, what counts as abuse? When you think about it, animal ethics is not as cut and dry as people believe. If you ask a class of animal biologists what counts as abuse towards animals, you will get a wide array of answers. Indeed, this is the very question that was posed during my first class in animal welfare 6 years ago, and I remember it to this day. There were people of many different backgrounds, ethnically, socioeconomically, and we all had different opinions. Some believed that failing to brush your dog’s teeth counts as abuse (a task very few pet owners perform), others believed that being too poor to afford veterinary care was abuse, yet when questioned many ardently defended homeless people with dogs who arguably could not afford to. Some believed that hunting wildlife or fishing was abuse, that slaughter was abuse, the question is more complicated than it appears. You can argue that putting an unwanted animal to death is wrong, but what makes it different from the slaughter of thousands of chickens, cattle, and pigs? Are cats and dogs more intelligent? Do livestock feel less pain than other organisms? Is it inherently wrong to kill or is it dependent on the situation. These are not easy questions to answer.
The Question of Intelligence
Humans are animals, however loath we may be to admit it. But what is it about us that separates us from the rest? Arguably humans are extremely intelligent creatures, we are excellent at solving problems through complex use of tools and the ability to create plans. We are creatures that are capable of recognizing ourselves in mirrors, able to ponder over the nature of our own existence. But can the same be said for other animals and does their perceived lack of intelligence permit our use of them, is it permissible to strike or mock someone whom you see as unintelligent, to enslave them, to eat them, to experiment on them? A modern day person would generally answer with a resounding “no!” but this was not always the case.
Pythagoras urged better treatment for animals
Pythagoras (592 BCE – 496 BCE), remembered throughout history for Pythagorean theorem was not only a mathematician but a philosopher. He believed that those who had no problem with consuming and killing animals would become apathetic to killing and that animals possessed souls, as such Pythagoras was one of the worlds earliest known vegetarians. Later, Plato espoused similar views to Pythagoras, but asserted that the universe existed for human use and that animals do not have souls, and that God made them that way. Plato’s student, Aristotle, was one of the first to consider the question of animal intelligence.
Aristotle (384-322 BCE), wrote two treaties cataloged in Historia Animalium in which he gave serious thought to the intelligence of animals, going as far as to say that they have “practical intelligence” and conceptualized that animals are intelligent with regard to their respective ways of life. He believed that animals like humans, have souls, but his definition of a soul was somewhat different than that of Pythagoras or Plato, he believed that a soul is basically the driving force behind an animals life, his distinction between humans and animals came in the form that he deemed them “irrational” or incapable of reason. Along similar lines he proposed a kind of hierarchy rooted in religion whereby the universe was meant for humans, and that women are lesser than men, some humans are meant to be slaves, and that all humans are above animals, with plants ranking as least. He did not believe that humans have a duty to animals, because he believed them to be incapable of reason.
Thomas Aquinas
Fast forward a few hundred years to a period of Christianity out in full force, and you encounter the Italian priest, Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). Aquinas was a prolific writer and a deep, if highly biased thinker with most of his theories and beliefs coming back to his religion. He had much to say on the ideas of cognition, and the senses, intellect, and free will. Aquinas’ thoughts on rationality and cognition as they pertained to animals were that they are irrational, incapable of determining their own actions, and are therefore instruments designed for humans to use by God. In short, Aquinas views animals and plants as being about as morally relevant as a pebble on the beach, excusing basically any and all use of them. To him, they were objects. However, in a somewhat surprising twist on his thoughts on animals, he also did not condone cruelty towards them, not for the sake of the animal, but out of the belief that animal abusers could develop habitual cruelty towards other people.
Immanuel Kant
Moving forward in time still, you encounter German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Kant was extremely interested in metaphysics, a topic which he explored at great length and linked with morality and which is featured heavily in Kantian ethics. Kant posited that there is no moral duty to things which cannot reason; however, he argued we have an indirect duty to animals to protect ourselves. He argued that slaughter of animals is permissible but should only be done painlessly, and that “agonizing” experiments for the sake of spectacle should be prohibited. Kant even went so far as to classify situations in which it is and is not permissible to use animals and believed that undue cruelty was a violation of a person’s duty to themselves as a moral being. This being said, he still considered animals about as morally relevant in and of themselves as objects, referring to them as “things”, in the same classification as one would place a pebble or a wagon wheel. This is of course, but a very brief introduction to his theories on ethics and moral duty.
René Descartes
From 1596-1650, French philosopher and scientist René Descartes lived as a reprehensible downright evil jerk (my personal opinion) when it comes to the topic of animals. Descartes, a subscriber of mechanist theory, believed that animals were non-reasoning non-human biological machines without any sensibility to speak of. He routinely performed vivisections, dissections on living and conscious animals without any kind of sedation, a practice now accepted as horrifically cruel, believing them incapable of feeling pain despite their agonized cries. These “demonstrations” were done publicly, mostly on dogs who he would nail to the table, then cut open as they writhed and screamed in agony all while proudly telling onlookers that these were simply automatic, unconscious, responses, and at the time he was not alone in his thinking. To be quite honest, when I first learned about this “philosopher” I left the lecture hall with tears streaming down my face. His views; however, were not without strong opposition.
The Question of Suffering
Descartes Cartesian philosophy endured a period of popularity for several centuries, but not everyone was in favor of vivisection, though those against principally argued that it should not be performed due to the negative emotional states it permitted on those who performed it. The Christian belief at that time that intersected with Cartesian theory was that animals exist for human use of them, whatever that may be, making arguments centered around the animal as its own entity quite unpopular, yet the debate on whether animals had souls was still open. In the 19th Century, Cartesian theory began to enjoy mounting pushback from those that contented its views. In 1808, Lord Byron of Newstead Abby, erected a memorial with a poetic epitaph to his Newfoundland, Boatswain, who died of rabies during a time before a vaccine existed. The epitaph both praises and shows great love for Boatswain, but also indirectly criticizes the widely held beliefs of the day by the line,
“This praise, which would be unmeaning Flattery
Lord Byron of Newstead Abby -1808
if inscribed over human Ashes”
While some Christians scoffed at such tributes to animals, others like those that formed the SPCA emphatically denounced vivisection as “unchristian” calling it “evil” and “satanic”, yet the pope refused to call for animal protections to avoid taking the stance that animals had souls, or rights.
With such opposing opinions, a justification for the protection of animals was needed that was not based in faith or the concept of souls. Hence, the debate opened as to whether or not animals feel pain.
Jeremy Bentham
Jeremy Bentham was an English philosopher (1748-1832), who despite being criticized for somewhat ambiguous defenses of his position, represented a turning point of sorts for his stance on animals, advocating that animals should be treated as having moral value on the basis of suffering. He is famous for being quoted as saying,
“The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being.”
Jeremy Bentham -1789
Unfortunately, Bentham was unable to make much in the way of further arguments as to why animals should be protected under the law. Still, beliefs began to shift to the view of animals as sensitive beings.
Charles Darwin
Charles Darwin (1809-1882), most known for developing evolutionary theory, also made strong contributions to the discussion of animal ethics. He is known to have argued that animals demonstrate moral behavior, affection, and sentience. Though he recognized the value of vivisection for understanding of physiology (keep in mind that anesthetics were not developed until 1846, and were still relatively new at the time), he is quoted as saying,
“You ask about my opinion on vivisection. I quite agree that it is justifiable for real investigations on physiology; but not for mere damnable and detestable curiosity. It is a subject which makes me sick with horror, so I will not say another word about it, else I shall not sleep to-night”
Charles Darwin – 1871
Darwin later would advocate for the regulation of research, particularly to vivisection with the stipulation of use of anesthetics, and endorsing the punishment of those who performed unnecessary and painful experiments.
Frances Power Cobbe
Frances Cobbe (1822-1904), was another powerful voice in promoting legislation against animal cruelty in the 19th century, she was outspoken in her hatred for vivisection and wrote many scathing articles designed to expose the horrors of the practice to the public. She is also the founder of Cruelty Free International, an animal rights organization against animal experimentation established in 1898, and her opinions supported by notable figures such as Queen Victoria. She was said to be on good terms with Darwin, although they disagreed on the necessity of vivisection for the purpose of physiological research, having called physiologists of the day “demons” (although given the context it’s hard to blame her). Arguably though, her stance on animal rights was much less stringent than many activists of today, as she believed that humans have a moral duty to promote the well-being of animals as sentient beings, but made allowances for their use when absolutely necessary and with every care to avoid cruelty. Her work helped to raise awareness and introduce laws governing animal use in research, and her legacy continues to keep researchers in check to this day.
Ruth Harrison
Ruth Harrison (1920-2000), brings us to many of the founding concepts of animal welfare currently in use. After the industrial revolution, many changes were happening in farming and a largely unregulated industry of factory farms was taking shape. Ruth investigated factory farms, and the cruelty she witnessed inspired her book “Animal Machines“, a worthwhile read for any budding veterinary professional or ethically curious consumer. In her book, she detailed with chilling detail the things she witnessed in factory farms, things the public were not privy to. The publishing of her book sparked outcry across the UK, and led to the development of a task force headed by Dr. Francis W. R. Brambell, of which Ruth Harrison was a member. The committee investigated factory farming in Britain and developed the Brambell Report , in which the “Five Freedoms of Animals” was first introduced as a metric for evaluating animal welfare. These five freedoms were quickly adopted by many countries around the globe and the work of the committee sparked many legal and regulatory changes and are still respected today, even as our industry continues to evolve and improve in our understanding of animal welfare.
Concluding Remarks
It is necessary to remark that this is but a brief overview of the history of animal ethics. It is far from exhaustive and leaves out many other notable persons involved, and different categories of thought. Where are we today when we discuss the questions of can they think or feel? In general, researchers have not yet accepted that animals are conscious in the same way that humans are. It is considered definitively “unscientific” to state that your pet loves you as one cannot establish in definitive terms what goes on inside the mind of a cat, dog, or any other organism you wish to name for that matter. However, it is well established that animals have all the equivalent structures to humans and exhibit responses that suggest they do indeed feel pain. Death, is not typically considered part of the animal welfare equation, as a dead animal presumably feels no pain. It is not so much a harm as it is the cold objective absence of life. Provided an animal is killed in a way that is considered humane and painless, most welfarists do not consider death to be an issue, thus making euthanasia or slaughter of animals for research or food permissible. That being said, while an animal lives, it is my opinion and one that is shared by many others that though it may not be possible to get away from animal use in research entirely, every precaution should be taken to prevent suffering and promote the well-being of the animal at all cost. Universities today establish ethics committees for the review of any project utilizing living animals to prevent unnecessary abuses. There are still many debates as to what we owe to non-human animals, and how we assess whether an animal is sentient, but that’s a topic for another day. Either way, understanding the history of ethics in the animal-human relationship is an important lesson for any inspiring vet. We must know the mistakes of the past lest we wish to repeat them.
I wanted to become a veterinarian, out of a deep love for animals. Over the course of my life I have thought greatly about animal rights, animal welfare, and the reconciliation between the need for animals (including humans) in research an experimentation with the prevention of suffering. Truly one would be an inept veterinarian without the copious research done utilizing animals for drug development. We owe the discovery of insulin to dogs who were literally tortured for the discovery in the home-lab of Fredrick Banting with a questionable set of ethical practices. While praised for the discovery, it stands to reason whether Banting’s experiments could pass ethical review today, yet without it we may never have discovered the link between diabetes and insulin. We also rely largely as a species on the use of farm animals for food, an industry that is still rife with examples of welfare violations despite significant improvement over the years. The question of ethics is a difficult one, but we can but try to conduct ourselves as morally as possible to be the best practitioners we can be. I must confess that no matter how many behaviorists scoff at me, I truly believe in my heart of hearts that my dog and cats, do in fact, love me. A feeling that is mutual.
Want More Content Like This?
If you enjoyed reading this article. Consider leaving a small donation of $1-2 on my patreon. I may be an international student, but unlike other international students I am not from wealthy family. I am struggling to pay for my degree off my own blood, sweat, and tears. While I enjoy writing, it takes time and effort and is not particularly lucrative. Any small donation would be greatly appreciated. That being said, I appreciate everyone who does me the honor of reading my blog. I may not be the most inspiring writer but I am working on myself and seeing that people actually read this stuff makes my day. Whether you donate or not, everyone is welcome at PetiScience, and I thank you for your continued support. Please feel free to leave a comment down below, let me know what you think, and what you’d like to hear about in the future.
PetiScience 