BACK TO QUEBEC CITY 2002 TITLES
Animal ethics as fiduciary
responsibility: moving animal welfare forward
R.K. Anthony
Purdue University, West
Lafayette, USA and University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
“First wave” philosophical animal ethics tend to highlight the supremacy of justice as the primary moral virtue, emphasizing detachment rather than interconnection and interdependence in human-animal relations. In agriculture, however, domesticated animals are vulnerable and depend on human beings to promote their welfare. By default then, human beings are essentially trustees and assume special responsibilities toward their animal-dependents. Here, trust is an essential but tacit attribute of the human-farmed animal relationship.
This paper explores a theory of fiduciary responsibility and the role trust plays in hierarchical, non-egalitarian interpersonal human-farmed animal relationships. It is argued that there is a tacit contract, considered as a type of promise, which founds how we ought to treat domesticated animals. This tacit contract, which looks to the ethics of care as a corrective to supplement and enhance “first wave” obligations in ethical relationships, reinforces the legitimacy of considering particular details of each situation in making ethical decisions.
This paper begins by assuming that moral obligations are changed by the individualized relationships we have with animals. This assumption builds on principles of stewardship, comparable quality of life, and just desserts already found in traditional animal husbandry ethics, and is based in part on recognition of the following criteria, i.e., dependency, bondability and affection, domiciliation, and balance of power.
A theory of fiduciary responsibility encourages us to envision domesticated animals as individual sentient subjects who trust us to act in their best interest instead of as collective wholes defined in mere economic terms and to confront the ethical responsibilities incumbent upon caregivers and incurred by farm owners due to the contractual nature of our relationship with farmed animals. It obligates us to promote the well-being of animals and increase caring and understanding of their needs in exchange for their forfeited liberty and life sacrifice.
While farmers are responsible for the direct care of their animals, consumers and government institutions are partners in reducing dissonance in farming practices, promoting infrastructure that induces best husbandry practices, and should understand the ethical, social, and financial challenges faced by farmers.
Taking dairy cows as an example, this paper discusses what their needs are to make the discussion more concrete.