Issues of Non-Human Life and Death (AQA A-Level Religious Studies): Revision Notes

Issues of Non-Human Life and Death

Introduction

This topic examines ethical questions surrounding the treatment of non-human animals across four key areas:

• Use of animals as food and intensive farming
• Use of animals in scientific procedures and cloning
• Blood sports
• Animals as a source of organs for transplants

Each issue involves potential misuse of animals, so the ethical considerations overlap significantly. The three normative ethical theories - natural moral law, situation ethics, and virtue ethics - each offer different perspectives on these issues.

The moral status of animals

There is no universally agreed definition of the moral status of animals. The debate centres on what qualities grant moral status.

Arguments denying moral status to animals

Some deny animals moral status based on claims that they:

• Lack rationality
• Have no souls
• Possess no consciousness
• Cannot speak

Arguments granting moral status to animals

Others grant animals moral status, arguing they:

• Possess rationality
• Have souls
• Are conscious
• Can communicate

Jeremy Bentham's view

The utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham argued that moral status comes from the ability to feel pleasure and pain. Since animals can experience both, they have moral status according to Bentham.

Scientific evidence about animals

Modern research demonstrates that:

• Animals have consciousness and are sentient (self-aware). Denying this ignores established facts.
• Animals exhibit complex social and co-operative behavioural patterns, emotional responses, and self-directed behaviour. They can grieve and show empathy.
• The most intelligent animals possess long-term memory and can understand simple symbolic language. Chimpanzees can demonstrate a vocabulary of 1,500 words using computer imagery and can out-perform humans in some short-term numerical memory tests.

Key considerations

Intelligence is not the only measure of value - otherwise we would not protect mentally weaker members of human society. Judging moral awareness in animals is difficult, though we can observe it through their social behaviour patterns.

Facts about each issue and ethical concerns

1. Use of animals as food; intensive farming

Definition: Intensive farming refers to factory farming of animals (not just mechanised agriculture).

The facts

Most widespread use of animals for food occurs in intensive farming contexts. This includes:

• Farming animals in tiny crates for fur (mink and sable farms reportedly sometimes skin animals alive)
• In the food industry, most animals live in crowded and filthy conditions
• Animals suffer painful procedures such as branding, de-horning, de-beaking, tail removal, and teeth sawing, generally without anaesthetic

Ethical issues

The key ethical concerns include:

• Whether humans have the moral right to inflict such pain and suffering on animals who possess sentience, social organisation, and cognitive skills
• Whether animals have a right to life
• The fact that the meat industry contributes to human starvation - cattle consume around fifteen times more grain than they produce as meat. It might be ethically preferable to decrease meat production and increase crop production.

2. Use of animals in scientific procedures; cloning

The facts about scientific procedures

Scientific procedures refers to using animals to:

• Develop drugs and medicines to treat human conditions and diseases
• Test new therapies
• Research vaccines and drugs (e.g., HIV/AIDS research came from studying similar viruses in chickens, cats, and monkeys; penicillin was developed through research on mice and rodents)
• Study oncology (prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of cancer/tumours)

The facts about cloning

Cloning is the process of producing genetically identical copies of a plant or animal. Applications include:

• Preserving endangered species
• Improving animals to make them disease-resistant or increase meat/fur yield
• Therapeutic cloning of cells to understand diseases and test medicines
• Mass-production of animals for scientific research

Ethical issues

Key concerns include:

• The moral right of humans to conduct research without consent on animals who possess sentience, social organisation, and cognitive skills
• Despite many scientists' commitment to control animal pain, many still use no anaesthetics at all
• Duplication of experiments in different countries without co-ordination to lessen impact on animals
• For cloning, concerns about where the technology might lead, such as human-animal hybrids

3. Blood sports

The facts

Blood sports are activities that involve animal bloodshed or death, conducted for participant entertainment. Examples include:

• Hunting
• Fishing
• Hare-coursing
• Badger-baiting
• Bull-fighting

Ethical issues

The main concerns are:

• The moral right of humans to kill or maim for their own amusement, particularly animals who possess sentience, social organisation, and cognitive skills
• The negative effect on human psychology - participants can become hardened or desensitised to animal suffering and may transfer this to their treatment of humans

4. Animals as a source of organs for transplants

The facts

The technical term is xenotransplantation - the transfer of cells, tissues, or organs from one species to another. Examples include:

• Transplanting human tumour cells into mice for cancer research
• Using genetically engineered pig hearts (modified to prevent rejection and blood clotting) for life-saving human heart transplants

Ethical issues

Key concerns include:

• The moral right of humans to use and kill animals who possess sentience, social organisation, and cognitive skills as sources of body parts
• Risks of procedures, particularly the transfer of diseases and viruses from animals to humans (e.g., human contact with chimpanzee blood possibly transmitted an immune deficiency that mutated into HIV, now a global pandemic)

Natural moral law

Aquinas' hierarchy of souls

Aquinas adopted Aristotle's hierarchy which places different types of souls in order:

Plants (vegetative soul)

• Nutrition and growth

Animals (sensitive soul)

• Nutrition and growth
• Movement
• Sense perception and low-level thought

Humans (rational soul)

• Nutrition and growth
• Movement
• Sense perception
• Reason

In this hierarchy, animals can use plants as food, and humans (at the top) have the same right in relation to animals. Animals were created for any use humans choose.

Aquinas on humans and animals

Aquinas stated that although humans are of the same 'genus' as other animals, they are of a different 'species'. From this, he concluded:

• Humans are the only rational beings
• Humans alone can determine their actions
• Only humans deserve concern for their own sakes
• Animals have instrumental value only - they exist for the sake of humans who use them
• Only humans can achieve the final end of union with God, so all other beings exist to help humans achieve that end

Aquinas' justification for killing animals

Aquinas argued there is no sin in using things for their purpose. Since animals use plants and humans use animals for food, and this cannot be done without taking life, it is lawful to:

• Take life from plants for animal use
• Take life from animals for human use

He supported this with Biblical references: God gave humans 'every herb' and 'all trees' for meat, and 'everything that moveth and liveth shall be meat to you'. Augustine's view was cited - by God's ordinance, both animal life and death are subject to human use.

The status of killing animals

Aquinas held that killing another person's ox is sinful not because of killing the ox, but because of injuring another person's property. This is a sin of theft or robbery, not murder. No restitution can be made to the animal - only to its owner.

Application to the four issues

Use of animals as food; intensive farming

Natural moral law justifies using animals as food and intensive farming procedures. Key points include:

• Bludgeoning animals to death (cheaper than regulated abattoirs) is not considered a moral issue in Aquinas' system
• Animals having a right to life is not relevant since any potential animal rights are subsumed under human rights
• The approach is justified by Biblical appeals

Use of animals in scientific procedures; cloning

Natural moral law supports these practices because:

• If animals are human property, using them in scientific procedures is not immoral in itself
• Experiments may develop cures for human diseases
• If the animal dies as a result, this is acceptable to Aquinas
• The Catholic Church accepts this approach: "Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice, if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2417)
• Using scientific procedures to cure terminal diseases fulfils the primary precept to preserve human life

Pain and cruelty: Aquinas accepts pain inflicted on animals if necessary to the experiment. If pain is unnecessary and inflicted by human cruelty, Aquinas would object - not for the animal's sake, but because the cruel person "might go on to do the same to men". He is concerned about effects of excessive animal pain only if it leads people to inflict pain on humans.

Cloning concerns: Experiments that change the nature of animals (e.g., part-animal, part-human beings, or mixing genetic structures of different animals) would trouble Aquinas. Given animal cloning's potential to change species nature, he would probably condemn such procedures since each species was created by God to fulfil its purpose as that species. However, genetic experimentation within species (to increase milk yield, animal size, disease resistance) would probably be acceptable, and the Catholic Church generally takes this approach.

The Catechism states: "Man's dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator... requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation... Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness." (2415-2416)

Pet cloning: Animal cloning is now available for cloning pets. However, animal welfare bodies like the RSPCA criticise dog cloning because it causes pain and distress, with high failure and mortality rates, and cloned animals frequently suffer physical ailments. Natural moral law might reject cloning if the process amounts to unjustified abuse "even when done to... animals who are without rational souls."

Blood sports

Natural moral law offers little objection to blood sports:

• Humans can use animals as they see fit, which includes blood sports
• Pain and suffering inflicted upon animals is acceptable as part of that use
• If the animal dies as a result, this too is acceptable as a result of legitimate use

However, the Catechism of the Catholic Church offers a more nuanced view:

• "Men owe [animals] kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals." (2416)
• "It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly." (2418)

Since blood sports are not kind and cause animals to suffer and die needlessly, these comments suggest a more reasonable approach than Aquinas'. However, little is translated into action, though Catholic groups have called on the Pope to act over blood sports in line with Church ideas about human 'stewardship' of creation (Genesis 1:26).

Animals as a source of organs for transplants

Though Aquinas would not have considered this issue, his natural moral law would generally approve:

• Humans have the moral right to use animals in any way they see fit
• With certain safeguards, using animals as organ sources would probably be acceptable
• The main safeguard would be a ban on any attempt to modify the human germline (inherited material from eggs or sperm), which would be a modification of God's blueprint for humans at creation

The Catholic Medical Association (UK) reflects this: "We are opposed to any xenotransplantation which might modify the germline, and particularly to any transplantation of sex organs or gametes. We are opposed to any use of human tissue for transplantation into animals."

Situation ethics

Situation ethics focuses on personalism - by definition, Fletcher's theory is concerned with persons. Agape love in the Bible is also primarily concerned with persons. This does not mean animals are of no concern, but human interests will generally be put first.

Animals and agape love

Many who agree with situation ethics see animals as included in God's love. Agape love is inclusive rather than exclusive, and there is no intrinsic reason why it should not apply to animals as objects of human care. However, in life or death situations, most situation ethicists would put human life before animal life.

Much depends on individual interpretation of how agape love might be applied to particular situations regarding animals.

Application to the four issues

Use of animals as food; intensive farming

Fletcher urges people to make agapeic calculations by asking:

• What end do we seek?
• What means do we use to obtain them?
• What motive is behind our act?
• What are the foreseeable consequences?

Two factors have changed this view:

1. The introduction of intensive farming means 'hunting animals for food' has changed to 'exploiting animals for food'. Factory farming methods are almost universally exploitative, cruel, and unjust.

2. The mechanisation of agriculture has contributed to huge global population increase.

These factors are mutually reinforcing - continual population growth fuels the need for intensive farming, so cruelty to animals increases massively.

Global hunger: Current estimates suggest about 795 million people are undernourished, lacking sufficient food to lead an active and healthy life. This is particularly true in less economically developed countries, where around 12.9% of the population is undernourished.

Different situation ethics responses:

Some situation ethicists argue the most loving thing is to increase intensive animal farming and mechanised agriculture, since this puts persons first. They might argue that starving children is worse than intensive animal farming.

Other situation ethicists could argue this is not loving because:

• The calculations maximise misery rather than love
• It looks for short-term rather than long-term solutions
• The meat industry contributes to human starvation (cattle consume around fifteen times more grain than they produce as meat)
• It could be more loving to abandon intensive animal farming for more productive methods
• Factory farming should be abandoned in favour of crop production
• New technologies should be developed for growing meat in laboratories (meat that does not come from any kind of animal)

Use of animals in scientific procedures; cloning

Fletcher himself was involved in cloning research and had clear views on bio-ethics. He advocated using animals in scientific procedures as:

• The means to the end of human welfare
• A pragmatic way of saving human lives by developing vaccines for major diseases

Public opinion: Various UK surveys show fairly steady support (around 80-90%) for using animals in scientific experiments to develop cures for major diseases such as diabetes, HIV/AIDS, cancer, coronary artery disease, and stroke. Most people stress the need for adequate pain control for the animals. Most situation ethics supporters would probably agree with both points as the most practical, effective, and agapeic ways of addressing human diseases.

Counter-argument: Some argue it can never be loving to subject animals to the kinds of tests that experimentation requires. Moreover, although extensive pain controls are claimed, this is often disputed. PETA (UK) investigations into pharmaceutical companies, universities, and other institutions have reported:

• Mice with tubes inserted into their brains
• Animals subjected to major organ damage and surgical mutilation
• Starvation and water deprivation for days
• Forced running on treadmills to avoid electric shocks
• Disturbing killing methods such as carbon dioxide poisoning in gas chambers or decapitation of infant rats with scissors

Blood sports

Most situation ethicists would likely not put human interests before animal species when human pleasures are gained at the expense of animal pain and suffering.

Character concerns: The nature of human pleasure in blood sports can be said to degrade participants because it may:

• Damage character
• Lead to other forms of violence
• Desensitise people to inflicting pain for pleasure

Agapeic assessment: There is arguably nothing agapeic about blood sports. Oscar Wilde described fox-hunting as "the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible." The ban on fox-hunting in England, Wales, and Scotland suggests fox-hunting is unethical. Limitations on blood sports have been enacted in many parts of the world.

Animals as a source of organs for transplants

The same general considerations from other issues apply here.

Key questions: Fletcher's situation ethics is directed at persons. For most people, animals do not qualify as persons in the strict sense, though for others they do. Answers depend on the situation and individual views about animal status.

The main question is "Who is to be helped?" An immediate answer includes all those in need of organ transplants, especially hearts, so transplantation from animals to humans would help persons.

Future considerations: An agapeic calculus needs to be future-looking since the technology does not yet exist in usable form. The most likely donors are pigs because:

• Their body organs are similar in size to human organs
• Pigs are readily available (whereas chimpanzees are endangered)

The calculus must also consider the possibility of transmitting infections from donor to recipient. However, Fletcher points out that agapeic calculations always carry some risk - otherwise there would be no need for calculation.

Virtue ethics

Aristotle is the source of Aquinas' hierarchy of souls in which plants exist for animal use and animals for human use. Cows eat grass and humans eat cows. There were no factory farms in Aristotle's time and no scientific procedures in the modern sense, though Aristotle did dissect animals as part of his investigations into animal behaviour.

Aristotle's teleological view

This hierarchical approach has dominated European thinking for more than 2,300 years. Aristotle's whole approach to animals is based on his teleological view that all things have a final end - a reason which governs their existence, what they do, and what they can achieve.

We must adapt Aristotle's thinking into a modern context to discuss the four issues.

Application to the four issues

Use of animals as food; intensive farming

Given Aristotle's hierarchy of souls, he would have had no ethical problem with eating meat, since he considered animals existed for the sake of humans.

Modern context challenges: It is unclear how Aristotle would have reacted to intensive animal farming methods. Consider factory farming of chickens as an example:

• These animals live in crowded and filthy conditions
• Around 60% of chickens are produced in industrial systems
• Some are fed drugs to encourage abnormal growth
• They can become so heavy their legs break, unable to bear body weight
• They live in their own filth, unable to turn round
• Overcrowding makes them aggressive, causing untreated body-sores
• Male chicks cannot produce eggs, so are useless to the egg industry and are often thrown into trash bags to suffocate or ground up alive

Virtue perspective: What virtues could Aristotle refer to in support of eating factory-farmed food?

Compassion: Perhaps the main virtue to consider is compassion. Compassion cannot be compartmentalised so that it applies only to humans - you are either a compassionate person or not. If you are, then compassion must apply to all animals, human and non-human. Factory-farming is not even remotely compassionate.

Character development: One might argue that virtues must be directed towards persons, not animals. But if Aristotle were brought back to life and given a tour of factory-farm conditions, what could he point to that could lead a person to develop a virtuous character?

Use of animals in scientific procedures; cloning

This issue presents somewhat different concerns for a virtue ethicist, given that most people support using animals in scientific procedures.

Aristotle's own practice: Aristotle himself used animals in his own scientific research, so he would clearly regard such procedures as compatible with a virtuous character.

Reason and intelligence: Aristotle insisted that the highest thing in us is reason - our intelligence, our intellect. We use our intelligence to do science and discover what the world is really like. There can be no achievement of reason greater than that. Using animals in scientific procedures extends our intellect and increases knowledge, and so is virtuous on that level.

Benefits of research: Scientific research enables development of drugs and medicines to control diseases such as HIV/AIDS and cancer. The same is true with animal cloning, which has potential for controlling specific diseases in animals, thereby improving animal health. Compassion directed towards humans might suggest using animals for such research is morally good.

Counter-argument: Other virtue ethicists object that using animals in scientific experiments is not compassionate at all because:

• It is done without animal consent
• There is no regulation to avoid experiments being duplicated worldwide
• There are now alternative technologies at least as effective as using research animals

Blood sports

It would be difficult to find convincing arguments against blood sports in Aristotle's writings, since hunting was a common Greek pastime and source of food.

Modern considerations:

• Hunting animals in public will upset and offend some people, as with fox-hunting
• General disquiet about hunting foxes has led to a ban in England, Scotland, and Wales
• Some judge a person by their treatment of animals, particularly consideration shown to animals that cannot defend themselves
• Participation in blood sports suggests to some a lack of consideration for humans as well as animals

Temperance: Some might appeal to the virtue of temperance, arguing that experiencing pleasure at the expense of other beings is not conducive to developing good character.

Rosalind Hursthouse's view: She argues blood sports show the vice of 'callousness' - they are indifferent to the feelings of both the animals concerned and those who sympathise with the animals.

Roger Scruton's counter-argument: The philosopher has delivered public lectures arguing that some blood sports are 'courageous'. For example, the matador who faces an enraged bull takes his life in his hands.

Alternative demonstrations of courage: There are many sports where a person can demonstrate reasoned courage without being callous to animals, such as:

• Heli-skiing
• Karate
• Base-jumping
• Cave diving
• Mountain climbing

Animals as a source of organs for transplants

Most arguments concerning animal use in scientific experiments apply also to using animals as organ sources:

• Aristotle's approval of scientific research
• His emphasis on developing useful knowledge
• Compassion shown to humans who might survive through organ transplants
• Callousness to animals by judging their lives expendable
• Callousness shown towards those in society distressed at the prospect of using animals this way

Final consideration

Bear in mind that virtue ethics is not just about which virtues apply to a particular situation. Its main emphasis is on developing a virtuous character, which brings together all characteristics of being human.