Jaramillo 1

Jennifer Jaramillo
Dr. Alexander Izrailevsky
PHIL-1000-007
28 July 2016
http://jjseport.weebly.com/phil-1000---intro-to-philosophy-hu.html
Animal Ethics: Animal Welfare
According to the online dictionary, ethics is a set of moral principles that govern a
persons behavior. It is a branch of philosophy that dealt with the morality of specific ideas,
concepts, and behavior. The subject of animal ethics falls under this branch. These issues are
important to the animal protection movement because people need to determine how to feel
about animals and how to best approach animals. Animal welfare is one of many issues in animal
ethics and which I believe in. Basically, animal welfare is a belief that accepts the use of animals
as if its a symbiotic relationship (e.g. pet companionship, agriculture) as long as there is no
unnecessary suffering on the animals side while animal rights is a belief that animals should be
free of human intervention and be left alone (e.g. no more agriculture). 1 There are various
philosophers that have discussed the issues of animals (e.g. vegetarianism, animal sentience).
There are at least eight viewpoints identified in approaching animals: animal exploitation,
animal use, animal control, animal welfare, animal rights, animal liberation, vegetarianism, and
veganism.1 Animal exploitation is basically abusing animals for illegal use (e.g. dog fighting
gambles, trafficking). Animal use is legal use of animals (e.g. animal testing, farming). Animal
control is legal animal population control (e.g. spaying and neutering to keep animal populations
1. Ethics and Philosophical Theories: Animal Welfare in Context. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://worldanimal.net/documents/2_Ethics.pdf
2. Fraser, D. (1999). Animal ethics and animal welfare science: bridging the two cultures. Applied Animal
Behaviour Science, 65(3), 171-189. doi:10.1016/s0168-1591(99)00090-8
3. Animals and Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/animeth/#SH2b
4. J Odendaal, J. S. (2005). Science-based assessment of animal welfare: companion animals. Rev. sci. tech. Off. int.
Epiz, 24(2), 493-502. Retrieved from http://www.oie.int/doc/ged/D2045.PDF

Jaramillo 2
low or stable). Animal welfare is ensuring that animals dont suffer excessively from being used.
Animal rights is ensuring that animals have rights and protection from humans and be free to live
on their own. Animal liberation is opposed to animal use and ownership and seeks freedom for
animals. Vegetarianism is a belief in eating dairy products and other sources of food but not
meat. Veganism excludes all sources of animal food from the diet (e.g. no fish, meat, eggs, and
dairy).
Today, cultures across the world have differing views and traditions concerning the use of
animals. For instance, in India, Hindus have come to treasure a cow as a sacred animal for they
provide dairy products that have been supplemented to their mostly vegetarian diet. In China,
people have culled cats and dogs as a source of meat. More often than not, they do not see these
animals as domestic, companion pets. In America, more people are leaned towards animal
welfare in comparison to animal rights but there has been in an increase in a number of people
believing in animal rights recently. Its mainly due to the fact they have come to see their pets as
family members.
Animal sentience and animal moral status have been a concern among many
philosophers. Sentience means having an ability to feel, think, and suffer. Some philosophers
believe animals to be lesser than human beings simply because they are of a different nature (e.g.
lack of reason, logic, and property). Therefore, in most cases, animals are not sentient and moral.
A 15th century French philosopher named Renes Descartes believed that animals do not have
souls and capacity to feel pain so he felt that its okay to experiment on animals without any form
of pain killer (e.g. anesthesia).1 Its mainly due to the fact that animals are incapable of using
1. Ethics and Philosophical Theories: Animal Welfare in Context. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://worldanimal.net/documents/2_Ethics.pdf
2. Fraser, D. (1999). Animal ethics and animal welfare science: bridging the two cultures. Applied Animal
Behaviour Science, 65(3), 171-189. doi:10.1016/s0168-1591(99)00090-8
3. Animals and Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/animeth/#SH2b
4. J Odendaal, J. S. (2005). Science-based assessment of animal welfare: companion animals. Rev. sci. tech. Off. int.
Epiz, 24(2), 493-502. Retrieved from http://www.oie.int/doc/ged/D2045.PDF

Jaramillo 3
speech that is audible to us. It seems that he either did not know or did not take into
consideration that the animals primarily hide their pain in order to not appear weak to potential
enemies (e.g. refusal to vocalize pain or walk as if they are in pain). While it does seem
counterproductive for animals to do this way (e.g. doing so makes us think they are stupid), it is
a defense mechanism deeply instilled in animals for a purpose of survival. This means of
survival suggests a type of intelligence that deserves respect for they have teeth and claws we
wont want to be subjected to.
Another 15th century French philosopher named Michael de Montaigne disagreed
otherwise. He explained that animals have their own way of communication among their kind.
He reasoned that just because humans and animals communicate differently does not mean that
animals are stupid, unfeeling or inferior.1 There have been studies that animals in fact do have
intelligent conversations among their kind. For instance, elephants have a complex
communication system in which they are able to differentiate and produce different types of
danger signals. They have their own grammar, syntax, and so on.

They even use tactile

communication such as touching trunks in specific ways to convey specific contexts. They also
used seismic waves to communicate!
Another French philosopher named Voltaire emphasized that speech is not necessary to
convey emotion and that we can tell how animals feel based on their body language and behavior
much like we can with human beings. 1 He noted that the physiology of animals closely
resembled the physiology of humans (e.g. same organ systems). Its likely that they feel pain
similarly to us. To say that animals are stupid because of being incapable of speech is not logical
1. Ethics and Philosophical Theories: Animal Welfare in Context. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://worldanimal.net/documents/2_Ethics.pdf
2. Fraser, D. (1999). Animal ethics and animal welfare science: bridging the two cultures. Applied Animal
Behaviour Science, 65(3), 171-189. doi:10.1016/s0168-1591(99)00090-8
3. Animals and Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/animeth/#SH2b
4. J Odendaal, J. S. (2005). Science-based assessment of animal welfare: companion animals. Rev. sci. tech. Off. int.
Epiz, 24(2), 493-502. Retrieved from http://www.oie.int/doc/ged/D2045.PDF

Jaramillo 4
or accurate. Its a contradiction because some babies and deaf people are incapable of speech but
they come out as smart as anyone else. There is a saying that mice and humans share about 99
percent of the DNA so testing mice has potential to create effective human medicine. It also
means that they can feel pain just like us.
Aristotle, a 3rd century Greek philosopher, believed that animals do not reason so he
believed them to be inferior to humans but he cannot deny their usefulness in terms of products
and services they can offer (e.g. food, transportation).1 So, he reasoned that animals are made to
be used in order to benefit humans while being cared for. In the 17 th century, an English
philosopher named Jeremy Bentham founded utilitarianism. It is a philosophy of finding best
approaches to maximize pleasure and happiness and minimize pain and suffering among all those
we affect.1 In other words, they try to ensure that the relationship between humans and other
animals is symbiotic. I disagreed with a notion that animals are inferior because they have
abilities we do not have but I agreed that they are useful in terms of biodiversity, food
production, transportation, companionship, noumenal means, and more. They help us modernize
the world we have today.
I believe in animal welfare because there are some animals that just cant survive in the
wild (e.g. domestic cows, chickens, and sheep). Its true that wild cows and chickens exist but
domestic cows and chickens have been breed for domestic life, meaning that they cannot survive
in the wild. So, its important to have a symbiotic relationship with them to ensure their comfort
and survival. In return, we get their eggs, dairy products, wool, and more. They used land that
could have been used for vegetation but I think its more important to manage animals that are
1. Ethics and Philosophical Theories: Animal Welfare in Context. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://worldanimal.net/documents/2_Ethics.pdf
2. Fraser, D. (1999). Animal ethics and animal welfare science: bridging the two cultures. Applied Animal
Behaviour Science, 65(3), 171-189. doi:10.1016/s0168-1591(99)00090-8
3. Animals and Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/animeth/#SH2b
4. J Odendaal, J. S. (2005). Science-based assessment of animal welfare: companion animals. Rev. sci. tech. Off. int.
Epiz, 24(2), 493-502. Retrieved from http://www.oie.int/doc/ged/D2045.PDF

Jaramillo 5
already there than culling them to pave more land for vegetation. Furthermore, I think it will be
difficult to breed out the domesticity out of farm animals. Their products more than make up for
the land they used. Its a fair exchange. Also, we ensure that they have sufficient water, food, and
shelter which are the necessities for life. Because they are breed for domestic life and to benefit
us, we have a responsibility to ensure that they are well taken care of in humane ways.
Its true that we should not exploit animals but I believe that animals have souls and
intelligence to know that its beneficial to have a symbiotic relationship. After all, we live in the
same ecosystem. To ignore the ecosystem as a whole and rather focus on individual rights is not
conductive to maintaining the balance in the ecosystem. For instance, if we allow domestic
animals out in the wild, there is no telling what they will be able to do in the wild. They are
incapable of caring for themselves in the wild and they have potential to bring disease to the
wildlife. Also, domestic animals and wild animals will have to fight over the resources they need
in order to survive. There is a dog eat dog world out there and the resources are rapidly
dwindling because of human interference and domination. If domestic animals are in our care,
we can keep track of them, prevent diseases, and maintain their happiness and health.
As a scientist Fraser said, we have a special power to domesticate creatures and have an
ability to understand animal behavior. Furthermore, no other animal has demonstrated such
capacity on a large scale. Thus, Fraser feels that we should take responsibility for our abilities
and execute them in righteous manner.2 According to the online encyclopedia of philosophy, it
has been said that only humans can act morally and that animals will not sacrifice their interests
for the sake of others. Thus, humans must act in the interests of humans rather than animals. 3 I
1. Ethics and Philosophical Theories: Animal Welfare in Context. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://worldanimal.net/documents/2_Ethics.pdf
2. Fraser, D. (1999). Animal ethics and animal welfare science: bridging the two cultures. Applied Animal
Behaviour Science, 65(3), 171-189. doi:10.1016/s0168-1591(99)00090-8
3. Animals and Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/animeth/#SH2b
4. J Odendaal, J. S. (2005). Science-based assessment of animal welfare: companion animals. Rev. sci. tech. Off. int.
Epiz, 24(2), 493-502. Retrieved from http://www.oie.int/doc/ged/D2045.PDF

Jaramillo 6
disagree with the notion that humans should act for humans rather animals. To the contrary, I
believe that humans should act for all of the species available on Earth because we are highly
conscious of ourselves and nature. Also, philosopher Albert Schweitzer embraced animal life and
believed in interconnectedness that is spoken of and supported in Eastern religions. 4 For instance,
Hinduism and Buddhism stated that we all are a part of an infinite universe so if we hurt animals,
we get hurt too. For example, if we dont take care of domestic animals, they get sick and spread
diseases to other areas that could have killed other domestic animals. Then there will be loss of
domestic animals and food products farmers need in order to feed themselves and sell for
income.
Lastly, for me, animal welfare is a necessity because of my work. Ive been studying
veterinary technology and my understanding is that animal rights do not allow the use of animals
for veterinary research or procedures because they see it as a type of exploitation. Its not
exploitation because veterinary research is necessary in order to find effective treatments for
animals. We dont want our beloved pets to die just like we dont want our beloved family
members to die. Also, livestock is expensive. It wont hurt to understand the inner workings of
diseases, viruses, and so on so we know how to fight diseases that potentially can plaque the
wildlife. We have capacity and tools so why not use them to benefit animals as well? It matters
not that we are interfering with the natural cycle of life and death. We already are interfering by
prolonging humans lives through medicine and advanced technology. I imagine that its the
same with the animals. The important thing is that we take responsibility for our actions and
dont take playing God too far.
1. Ethics and Philosophical Theories: Animal Welfare in Context. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://worldanimal.net/documents/2_Ethics.pdf
2. Fraser, D. (1999). Animal ethics and animal welfare science: bridging the two cultures. Applied Animal
Behaviour Science, 65(3), 171-189. doi:10.1016/s0168-1591(99)00090-8
3. Animals and Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/animeth/#SH2b
4. J Odendaal, J. S. (2005). Science-based assessment of animal welfare: companion animals. Rev. sci. tech. Off. int.
Epiz, 24(2), 493-502. Retrieved from http://www.oie.int/doc/ged/D2045.PDF

Jaramillo 7
References
Animals and Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.iep.utm.edu/anim-eth/#SH2b
Ethics and Philosophical Theories: Animal Welfare in Context. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://worldanimal.net/documents/2_Ethics.pdf
Fraser, D. (1999). Animal ethics and animal welfare science: bridging the two cultures.
Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 65(3), 171-189. doi:10.1016/s01681591(99)00090-8
J Odendaal, J. S. (2005). Science-based assessment of animal welfare: companion animals.
Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz, 24(2), 493-502. Retrieved from
http://www.oie.int/doc/ged/D2045.PDF