ICAWC 2013 Barcelona, Spain - Dorothy McKeegan's presentation on Ethical Decision Making

1. Ethical decision making
Dorothy E F McKeegan
BVA Animal Welfare Foundation Senior Lecturer
University of Glasgow
dorothy.mckeegan@glasgow.ac.uk

2. Outline
• Animal ethics introduction
– Do animals have moral standing?
– Animal interests
– Ethical frameworks
• Euthanasia and value of animal life
• Ethical decision making
– Case example

3. 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?

4. 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

5. Intrinsic moral value
If animals have a mental life and feelings
(e.g.) if they can feel pain
Interests flow from these feelings
(e.g.) the interest in avoiding
pain
Others are obliged to respect such
interests

6. Animal interests
Quality of Life
•
•
Hunger & Thirst
Fear & Distress
•
•
•
Pain, Injury & Disease
Discomfort
Behavioural restriction
•
•
•
•
Pleasure
Happiness
Play
Species behaviour
Quantity of Life
•
Shortened life
•
Extended life

7. 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.

8. Sentience does not always relate to moral
status – context is important
Same animal, different moral status
Pest
No moral status
Lab
animal
Indirect value
Pet
Intrinsic value

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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)

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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’

19. 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?

20. Influences on the decision
For euthanasia
Against 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
•
•
•
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
The shelter’s reputation needs to
be protected

21. Whose interests?
For euthanasia
Against euthanasia
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Jasper presents a danger to
children (and other dogs) S
Painless death will not harm
Jasper A
Jasper’s QOL in kennels may be
suboptimal A
The shelter has limited
resources and his place could be
taken by another dog likely to be
rehomed O
The shelter’s reputation needs to
be protected O
•
•
•
Jasper has a right to life A
Jasper is young and healthy A
Jasper could be rehomed and
have a good life A
A vet will have to do the
euthanasia V
The kennel staff are very
attached to Jasper O
The shelter’s reputation needs to
be protected O

22. 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

23. Example of weighting influences
For euthanasia
Against euthanasia
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Jasper presents a danger to
children (and other dogs) 6
Painless death will not harm
Jasper 4
Jasper’s QOL in kennels may be
suboptimal 6
The shelter has limited
resources and his place could be
taken by another dog likely to be
rehomed 4
The shelter’s reputation needs to
be protected 6
•
•
•
Jasper has a right to life 3
Jasper young and healthy 3
Jasper could be rehomed and
have a good life 5
A vet will have to do the
euthanasia 3
The kennel staff are very
attached to Jasper 4
The shelter’s reputation needs to
be protected 4
0-6 where 6 is most important

24. 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)

25. 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

26. 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

27. Thank you
for listening
dorothy.mckeegan@glasgow.ac.uk