Lecture 1 - The Psychology of How We Think About and Treat Animals

Part I: A Shift in How We See Ourselves and Animals

Historical Context

  • Human Specialness: For most of human history, there has been a belief in a separate and superior category for humans, often referred to as human supremacy.

  • Darwin's Theory: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution has challenged this notion. Humans emerged through natural selection, sharing a biological lineage with other life forms, likened to a "tree of life." This idea has dominated western thought; Darwin and modern biology pointed out that we are not special and we certainly are not on top of anything or an "end point"

  • Scala Naturae: The ancient Greeks believed in a great chain (ladder) of being humans at the top and only the gods above us; in the Judeo-Christian tradition: humans were made in the image of god

  • Judeo-Christian Tradition: A further belief that humans are created in the image of God, establishing a divide between humans and other animals.

Human Supremacy Beliefs Persist Today

  • Comforting Myth: Many individuals still endorse a comforting myth of human supremacy that legitimizes hierarchical relationships with animals.

  • It preserves hierarchy in human-animal relations and often used to justify instrumental & exploitative uses of animals as a “human right”

  • Psychological Measurement of Supremacy: A study by Dhont & Hodson (2014) developed a Human Supremacy Measurement scale. One item states, "The life of an animal is just not of equal value as the life of a human being," which correlates positively with support for animal exploitation (r = .52).

  • Speciesism Correlation: Speciesism measures reveal a correlation with meat consumption across cultures, as evidenced in studies conducted in Australia and Hong Kong (Northrope & Ruby, 2024).

Difficult Questions and a ‘Heavy Burden’

  • We may not be “special” in our biological origins, nonetheless, we have most of the power

  • We may be ‘superior’ to animals in our capacity for reason, justice and compassion (Steinbock, 1978); this places a moral burden on us

  • “We would do better to accept our mastery [with regards to moral superiority] and the heavy burden of responsibility that comes with it.” –Andrew Oberg (2016)

  • **Key Ethical Questions:

    1. When should we prioritize animal interests over human interests?

    2. Which specific animals deserve moral consideration and why?

  • Role of Science: Scientific research helps reveal the cognitive and emotional complexity of animals, arguing against the perception of them as mere machines.

  • Cognitive and Emotional Lives: Animals possess rich cognitive and emotional lives similar to humans (referenced works by Balcombe, 2017; Broom, 2010; Hatkoff, 2009).

Part II: Ethical Approaches to Animal Moral Standing

Moral Standing: Philosophical views

  • Interests View: Important philosophical perspectives define moral standing by considering if an entity can be said to have interests (Feinberg, 1971, 1974; Schönfeld, 1992; Singer, 1975).

  • Definition: An entity may have moral standing if it can experience needs or interests, such as avoiding pain. These interests necessitate moral considerations and responsibilities from humans.

  • Controversies Identified: Significant debates exist regarding which interests are relevant, what constitutes harm, and whether this framework may be too limited (e.g., should non-sentient entities be considered?).

Direct Moral Consideration

  • Inherent Value: To include an entity into our moral thinking for its own sake,

  • Direct duty to protect the entity’s interests: Animal can be ‘wronged’, due to inherent properties it has

  • Kant’s Perspective (1797): Kant questioned, “Whom has Fred wronged?” emphasizing the necessity of acknowledging the moral standing of entities.

Which entities have standing? - Human-Centric Views

  • Human Specialness: Philosophers like Carruthers (1992) and Kant (1797) argue about the unique qualities that grant humans moral standing, whether it be intelligence, culture, or moral agency.

  • Challenges: Inconsistent application raises concerns about who qualifies for human status—do all humans embody these traits?

Which entities have standing? - Sentience and Experience

  • Sentient Beings: Philosophers (Feinberg, 1974; Schönfeld, 1992; Singer, 1975, 1993) propose that it’s the capacity for interests or subjective experiences that determines moral standing.

  • Criteria Challenges: Determining sentience poses issues—what defines who is sentient, and how to evaluate this within various species?

Criticism - Martha Nussbaum Justice for Animals (2024)

  • •“pain and pleasure” is too restrictive

  • •Animals have unique desires, goals, projects, capacities, skills, etc.

  • •Consider each species’ needs and capacities; what helps them live a fulfilled life?

  • •E.g., fish are sensitive to pain; can they plan and have ‘extended projects’?

Which entities have standing? - Latent Tendencies (Strivings)

  • Attfield and Taylor’s Views: Concepts suggest moral consideration extends to beings possessing latent capacities for nutrition, growth, and respiration.

  • e.g., plants can recognize kin via their root system and adjust their growth patterns to orient toward the sun and surroundings; they seem to do this in an intelligent, ‘goal’ directed way (though on a different timescale than us)

  • Challenges with Application: The debate continues: Do concepts of harm and welfare apply to non-sentient beings, and can we reasonably include plants or abusive AI in this moral discourse?

Equal Consideration Argument

  • Singer’s Position (1975): Humans and animals are not equal in every respect, but we are in some important respects

  • We are equal in the interests that matter morally

  • Interest in not experiencing unnecessary pain

  • Interest in continuing to live, enjoy the company of others, care for their young, freedom to move around, fresh air, etc

  • Speciesism (Ryder, 1975): discrimination/exclusion from moral consideration on the basis of membership in a species, is as arbitrary as race or gender

  • Endorsement of Speciesism correlates with endorsement of sexism and homophobia (Caviola et al., 2019; Piazza et al., 2015)

Exploring Equality Further

  • Video Resources: Suggestions include probing into Peter Singer’s views on human and animal equality.

  • Key Argument: While our cognitive capacities differ, the right to not suffer and to live fully is a common interest shared across species.

Rethinking Human Supremacy

  • Humans have richer lives due to their higher cognitive capacity and cultural achievements

  • Their experiences “count” for more, and thus should be afforded greater consideration

  • Several problems with this view (Matheny, 2006; Singer, 1979)

Problems with human supremacy view

  1. Argument for marginal cases (Singer 1979)

  • Argues for the exact same principle we hold to be discriminatory in humans

    •If higher brain capacity or language is what matters, then why don’t we afford more rights or worth to humans with higher cognitive ability? (we don’t!)

  • Rebuttal

    •Humans with intellectual disabilities and young children belong to a moral society who has the idea of rights (“legal persons”), which extend to all humans

    Rejoinder

    •Rights are ideas that we believe should apply independent of whether a society has them

    •We don’t think: “Children (or women, indigenous people, people with disabilities, etc.) have rights only if they live in a society that grants them rights”

    •Applying the idea of rights only to humans is arguably an arbitrary boundary based on speciesism (i.e., preference for our own kind)

    •In practice, we could have legal representation for animals like we do for children and other vulnerable groups

  1. The supremacy view often attempts to change the question

  • “In an emergency, where you could save only one, would you save an animal or a human?”

  • In such an emergency there are many good reasons to save the human (Kagan, 2015; Steinbock, 1978)

  • But most encounters with animals are not emergencies or moral dilemmas

  • The real question is: “Whether in your regular day-to-day life should you ever cause unnecessary harm to a human or animal?”

    • Analogy: Youth and elderly

      •We may save a young child over an elderly person in an emergency (Goodwin & Landy, 2014), but it doesn’t mean we should ignore the wellbeing of older people in our daily lives

  1. We apply this criteria inconsistently across animals

  • •Dogs and cats are treated better despite having capacities similar to many of the animals we use, hunt, eat, etc. (e.g., elephants, sheep, cows, pigs, wolves, foxes, deer, whales, etc.)

Part III - Moral Obligations to Animals

  • Necessary first principle: Change is possible; people can change things, if we want to

    •E.g., consumers have power; due to the principle of supply and demand, people “vote” with their consumer choices (Singer, 1975)

  • Consumers can also vote for policies that improve animal welfare / rights

  • Rights example: Currently, animals are treated “legal things” (not legal persons) in most countries; efforts to change this for chimpanzees and elephants by Nonhuman Rights Project

    •To date, these efforts focus on habeus corpus rights (preventing unlawful imprisonment) but have failed (e.g., Happy the elephant denied habeus corpus rights in 2022)

  • Welfare example: Nov 2021 UK government declared lobsters, crabs and octopuses be included in Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill, paving way for some legal protections (e.g., against being boiled alive)

Addressing Responsibilities

  • Causal Responsibility: We are all consumers and so our actions impact on animals, if only indirectly (Singer, 1975)

Counter-arguments:

  1. But what if we don’t do the killing or harming ourselves?” (but pay for it)

Direct harm feels more wrong than indirect harm (Greene & Haidt, 2002), but are we any less culpable?

  1. But what if we kill ‘humanely’”?

Rejoinder: Killing in a certain sense is the “ultimate harm” (terminates future experiences; McWilliams, 2015)

  1. “But aren’t there more important issues to focus on?”

Rejoinder: “Universalism” / “Liberalism”: People who act on behalf of animals tend to act on behalf of oppressed humans too (De Backer & Hudders, 2015; Hayley et al., 2015; Sneddon et al., 2021)

  1. “But what if we have good reason(s) for harming/killing?”

Analysing Reasons for Actions

  • Public Outrage: Emotional reactions, such as being appalled by dog fighting, stem from cultural attachments and the clarity of indefensible reasons behind such actions.

  • Self-Defense Considerations: Harming an animal in self-defense generates different ethical assessments compared to harm inflicted for entertainment or sport.

Responsible Consumption

  • Awareness of Impact: Accepting responsibility involves questioning the reasons behind our consumer habits, understanding production chains, and advocating for ethical alternatives (e.g., Animal Clock UK).

Conclusion

Next Steps

  • Discussion on contributions of psychology to ethical considerations regarding animals in the next lecture.

  • Reminder: Q&A session starts at 5:10 PM; students encouraged to bring questions.