Dear colleagues,

This question is very simple in its design, yet very absorbent in the content of which can be activated in response.

I do not want to dwell and go into the details, because - I have such an impression - we are still in the discussion on the stage of refinement which topics belong to this problem (question).

In my opinion, the most general answer to this question is as follows: the fundamental difference between the animal ethics and the people ethics due to the fact, that the first of them has its base in the instinct and the second in rational thinking.

This is a hugely complicated question that deserves to be asked more often! There are answers in law (which varies from one jurisdiction to another), in philosophy (which varies from one philosopher to another) and in religion (which varies from one religion to another). In the law of most countries, humans are elevated to special status as "persons". Animals are not persons in most cases. Remarkably, though, corporations have become persons in some legal systems (which some philosophers regard as problematic). While individual animals are generally not given the same rights as persons, species are commonly protected once they are labeled as endangered (or "at risk"), and this protection is recognized in international law. Many countries protect individual animals against cruelty, but this protection is generally limited to domestic animals and mammals. There are various forms of animal rights organizations that are trying to change the situation, and there is a strong academic centre at: http://www.oxfordanimalethics.com/ Some countries have made progress recently to bring in laws that grant rights to 'Nature' (e.g. Bolivia) and hopefully this will become a progressive movement. (see: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/10/bolivia-enshrines-natural-worlds-rights). As an aside, some geneticists might refer to Dawkins' selfish gene theory in answering this question (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene)

Dear M.Ramachandra Mohan

We define ethics as something good , fair, correct, but we can not define ethics with a superficial view , we have to go further deep in every social group , ie , there is a differentiation of society to another , due to the customs, habits . So what is ethical for a company , may be an opposing view to another company . There is space on ethical , a gap that can only be completed by a social group of homogeneous behavior .

Only occur when the individual ethical accept do something , willingly , and not in a manner contrary to its purposes , by imposition of a rule ,

Ethics is a serious commitment that comes to values ​​and respect for individuals , and this action is like a mirror that reflects society .

Peter Singer , an Australian philosopher said : " Human life has no more value than the other animals."

Unfortunately , ethics is often used not as a tool for reflecting on human actions , but to justify them

It is unacceptable to use animals and children for experiments because both can not consent to a test . You can not do experiments on humans who are unable to understand the research and consent to it (like people at social risk , children and people with mental health problems ) . Animals also do not have to consent conditions , then they should also be protected by this principle . Animal experimentation is also running through the line of ethics when it disregards the interests of all animals in the name of a supposed human benefit or on behalf of the simplest to know . Thus , it is necessary to overthrow the scientific paradigm based on the use of animals and build another through surrogate methodologies , making the science evolves not only in terms of knowledge, but ethical considerations .

Biology of humans and non-human vertebrates are likely at similar perceived levels of phenotypic and genetic complexity. Investigations indicate that a non-domesticated bird and a human have many biological characteristics in common. Humans and non-human animals (domesticated or not) share many scientifically defined terminologies, including how organs, tissues, cells, or their phenotypic, physiological or chemical compounds are named. If success in research would be mainly influenced by financial support and human investment, humans being studied in much more detail than other living beings might be considered as adequate biological models indicating ability to solve scientific problems. If a problem cannot be solved in human research it is unlikely that the same problem can be solved in research involving less studied animals (e.g. wildlife). However, much science practice is not accessible to human research because of ethical reasons. Research in non-human animals might reveal phenomena not investigated in humans, whatever the financial and human support. For instance, daily living conditions can be better studied in wildlife because visiting and monitoring living places are allowed in non-human animals, but often not accepted for humans because of privacy protection rules. Alternatively, some research conducted with humans cannot be done with wildlife. For instance, people might ask human creators why they developed new toys, but they cannot ask wildlife why new mutations and new phenotypes appeared.

I agree with the former arguments that any living being should be treated as an individual and therefore respected. If I see a fly cleaning himself, I think, what is the fly thinking and feeling. On the other hand, thousands of animals are killed for consumption or when there is danger of infectious diseases (bird flue). So ethical rules are apparently context dependent. When human populations are in danger, rules apparently change....

La ética es esa capacidad que posee todo hombre para distinguir, querer y hacer el bien o el mal, es algo mas profundo y está más allá de convenciones, culturas y consenso, deben tenerse en cuenta sí, pero además. La ética hace referencia al hombre por ser hombre y la responsabilidad de sus acciones. El hombre de ayer de hoy, de mañana. De una civilización u otra de una religión u otra. La ética dice relación a la razón , a la voluntad y a la libertad y esto no lo tiene los animales.Cuando se habla de ética animal entiendo que es el cuidado y la protección que el hombre debe a los animales y lo mismo se aplicaría a la obligación de cuidar el entorno, y sobretodo a los individuos humanos mas vulnerables: niños, ancianos, discpacitados...

Maria,

you are probably right, but it would be nice to have a translation....

Perhaps somebody can help with this?

I love the question, and think it needs be taken cautiously. By this I mean trying indeed to reflect upon ethics without previous conceptions, being as least biased as possible. For ethics is and has been taken as a weapon to justify as many concerns as necessary. I agree then with Martin in that the question about justification should kept aside and, ratner, put on the front the concern about human action.

Ethics is a human concern, indeed, provided that nowadays even though the imput for ethical considerations is human, the output is not human beings, i.e. human reality as such, any longer. For we have been learning about the importance of other species, of other layers and dimensions of life and nature. In other words, we need de-anthropologize ethics. Such de-anthropologization does not mean considering the human dimension as a worthless. Instead, it is about including the meaning of being human within a larger and richer scope that precisely contains and gives meaning to human reality.

Besides, iot should be clearly pointed out that Singer himself is considered as a sort of devil among many conservatives and fundamentalists. Singer's merit consists just in having brought to the table the issue about animals as being ethically burdened.

@María Roqué,kindly translate to English,their by many scientists are able to Understand.

@Carlos Maldonado,We do research animals and so many sp are verge of extension/reducing their population.I like your words"I love the question, and think it needs be taken cautiously"

@J.H. Martin Willison ,Sir I fully Appreciate you gesture and your Advocacy "There are various forms of animal rights organizations that are trying to change the situation, and there is a strong academic centre at: http://www.oxfordanimalethics.com/ Some countries have made progress recently to bring in laws that grant rights to 'Nature' (e.g. Bolivia) and hopefully this will become a progressive movement. (see: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/10/bolivia-enshrines-natural-worlds-rights). As an aside, some geneticists might refer to Dawkins' selfish gene theory in answering this question (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene)"and information is greatly applicable . IS THEIR any such establishments are their in any place and their activities are more needed for further consideration by mankind.

Google translated Maria's answer as follows (with minor editing): "Ethics is that every man has ability to distinguish, and wanting to do good or evil, is something deeper and beyond conventions, cultures and consensus should be taken into account yes, but well. Ethics refers to man and man to be accountable for their actions. Man yesterday today tomorrow. Of a civilization or another of one religion or another. Ethics is related to the reason, will and freedom and this animals do not have. When speaking of animal ethics understand that it is the care and protection for men to animals and the same would apply to the obligation to care for the environment, and especially the most vulnerable human subjects: children, elderly, incapacitated ...". I think this is an interesting viewpoint because it implicitly raises the question of whether animals themselves have any ethical responsibility beyond their immediate responsibility to family, clan or species (all of which one can observe in animal behaviour). I suspect that some animals (such as whales and gorillas) may have the ability to answer this question if we could find a way to pose it.

@Martin: Thanks for the translation, thats one of the reasons to participate in RG.

Dear colleagues,

This question is very simple in its design, yet very absorbent in the content of which can be activated in response.

I do not want to dwell and go into the details, because - I have such an impression - we are still in the discussion on the stage of refinement which topics belong to this problem (question).

In my opinion, the most general answer to this question is as follows: the fundamental difference between the animal ethics and the people ethics due to the fact, that the first of them has its base in the instinct and the second in rational thinking.

Hello Andrzej,

good philosophy-based remark. I would then say:

Animal ethics = probably instinct (because we can not read the animal mind from scientific point of view)

Human ethics = instinct (e.g. humans take care for animals because there is the so-called 'instinct' of parental care) plus rational thinking (e.g. reasoning against the principles of instincts, but then again what to do with 'feelings' in general?)

I try to understand all the prior answers. I´ve not at all an idea what animals ethics should be. If you demand ethics against children, sick people, animals, this required behaviour is human ethics but no children ethics, sick people ethics or animal ethics. Could some one please help me to get access to this question by giving a clear definition of animal ethics?

@Marcel: I apologize, I havn´t seen your prior post.

Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or abuse in any way. Explore and justify.

Some of these likes are may be helpful to understand better.

http://icmr.nic.in/animal_ethics.htm,http://www.ciwf.org.uk/animal_sentience/default.aspx?gclid=CPLp08nTnrwCFW6t4godX0UAOw,

i think that human ethics face to animals is the human respect of their environment, animals are creatures that could also suffer from any cruelty and mistreatment. Domestic animals are more fragile as they don't develop body or instinctive resistance face to danger. I have a domestic cat who died 2 months ago at 16 years and 9 months of age after a disease. He had never leaved the house, and lived as a member of the family; now i ask myself if he was happy with the life that we imposed to him. May be if he lived with his race in nature ' without the comfort of the human home' he may be was more satisfied. Does our ethic to protect him from external danger 'and protect ourselves', imprisoned his real life from happiness ?? so are domestic animals really happy. He was an intelligent and affective animal, but what about his happiness ??? anyway his death was a painful experience, his disease too (he stopped eating for more than a week and lost many of his weight) as he was with good health a week before (may be he taken any poison??)... So i don't think that i could experience another domestic animal. May be our human ethic face of the animals is to respect their lives within their natural milieu.

Here is something of relevance to this discussion that I wrote:

"For all that we may not understand the functional role of a strange-looking beetle, or even know that a slippery protozoan exists, we are intuitively aware that these are necessary for ecosystems to function. While some parts of the life-system may be disposable in theory, others are not, and we have no idea which parts are technically redundant. Furthermore, we have no moral ground for regarding any part as redundant. After all, if there is such a thing as an ecosystem part that is not functionally necessary, then why should that unnecessary part not be the human? We do not consider humans to be disposable, and so we should also not consider any other species or sub-species to be disposable."

This quote can be found in the chapter at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259331992_Conserving_biodiversity_why_we_should_and_how_we_can?ev=prf_pub

When I wrote this, it was not intended to address the ethics of relationships between individual humans and individual animals, though it could be interpreted as such. In the article I provide some references dealing with the ethics of biodiversity conservation. I also provide a rational argument for biodiversity conservation using macro-economic accounting.

Chapter Conserving biodiversity: why we should and how we can

Ethics is the capacity of every man to distinguish, to love and to do good or evil. It is something deeper and beyond convention, cultures and consensus, should be taken into account, but there are realities that are not conventional or cultural, for example: eat with cutlery or chopsticks, it is conventional but we all agree that leaving a restaurant without paying, it is simply bad. Ethics refers to the man being man and the responsibility for their actions. It is part of the man of yesterday, today, tomorrow, always. It is a civilization or another of one religion or another. Ethics says relationship to reason, will and freedom and that animals do not.When you talk about animal ethics I understand that it is the care and protection that man owes to the animals, and the same would apply to the obligation of caring for the environment (importance of ecology) man but above all human individuals more vulnerable: children, elderly, disabled...

Respect for biological diversity implies respect for societal and cultural diversity.Societal values, norms and traditions shape our relationships with the living world, and ethics can help us to better understand and, as appropriate, re-orient these relationships. Ethical questions as they relate to biodiversity conservation, sustainable use and benefit sharing are among the issues to be addressed in the coming year.This words are drawn from following link-What is your opinion.

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/special-themes/biodiversity-initiative/biodiversity-culture/

The question is what is the difference between animal ethics and human ethics.

I think there is a very simple answer.

Human ethics takes humans as the centre of our enquiry. It is an anthropocentric ethics which gives only humans moral consideration.

Animal ethics has the non-human animal ( usually vertebrates) as the aim of our questioning taking animals as the object of the moral realm and moral consideration.

Similarly we have another type of ethics called Environmental ethics which posit the environment as the object of moral consideration.

Whereas human ethics asks if a particular drug tested on animals should be safe to be used on humans, animal ethics asks if that particular drug should be tested on animals. We could also ask if it is ethical to give an animal a drug that has been tested on humans.

What defines what type of ethics we are dealing with, is the object that is the concern or our moral consideration. ( humans, animals, the ecosystem, etc)

Human ethics takes into consideration human interests whereas animal ethics is concerned with the interests of animals.

@Anabela: Thats the first usable definition of the diverse ethic-terms I´m reading to this question.

Moral consideration is about value.

How do we value things? Do they have intrinsic value or instrumental value?

Instrumental value is a concept easy to understand, however intrinsic value is more complex.

I ask if the value ( not necessarily the moral value) of things need an evaluator to have value, or do they have value by themselves? If there were no humans on the planet to attribute value to the rain forest would it still have value? My answer is yes. It has value for all the living organisms that depend on it. But this is instrumental value. An animal may have value for its offspring or for its predator.

So what is moral value? It is the value that is given to things by moral beings?

Who are these moral beings? Organisms that can formulate moral values? This sounds like a circular argument to me.

To simplify things I guess that it would be better to refrain from discussing intrinsic value at all, for intrinsic value can become a concept which depends of personal taste and subjective world views. If it is not objective, what is its use? What do you think?

I would make a simple statement: Don't do to other living beings what you do not want that other living beings do to you. But humans and other non-human organisms are born to eat, so I would say then: 'Minimize forced interactions with other living beings as much as possible'.

@ Marcel

Vegans and vegetarians would argue against your statement by pointing out that humans are not obligatory carnivores and therefore they do not need to eat other animals.

Your concept of living beings is too wide. Bacteria are living beings! Plants are living beings and they don't eat. The do photosynthesis!. So your argument needs a bit more work :-)

There was a time when human beings only cared about themselves. As a consequences, they used everything else as means. Ethics, namely human ethics belongs to that tradition.

However, a time has come when we have realized that we are not the center of the universe, and certainly not the crux of evolution. JHuman beings are just one piece - valueable as it is, indeed- of a larger and richer panorama. Whence, animals come to be recognized as possessors of rights. Yes, in the same way as the environment has been awarded some rights, too.

The language of rights means that we cannot refer to other beings only for the sake of our own needs and satisfaction. As a consequence, a human ethics is not possible at all without, at the same time, crossing, considering, questioning, etc. the ethics of/about animals.

Not to mention the ethicity of nature herself.

Ramachandra, I agree with you "Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or abuse in any way. Explore and justify."; animals have been created for biodiversity equilibrium issue. They are programmed through their instinct for that purpose. However any abuse makes them suffering and as they are not able to speak about their pain, we are not able to quantify it. As well as animals programmed to eat and to wear must be kept in a natural milieu without any mistreatment and killed without feeling pain. ( for the story of my cat, only injection or veterinary visit made him crying as he feels it ); so how about any cruelty (or trouble) could be felt by them ????

So our ethics as human is to protect nature, its biodiversity, its equilibrium, and take care with its components, like animals..

Ethical committee, ethical approval and other ethical related words are extensively used in animal experiment institutions.if it only restricted to lab,than any meaning of biodiversity equilibrium and civilized human can protect the nature

Dear Fairouz, I agree with what you're saying. Please allow just to put it in more appropriate terms, thus:

Anemals were not created (unless one assumes beforehand a creationist explanation. The problem hence is that in the three major monoteistic religions the issue about animal ethics is merely non-existent ad ovo).

That is exactly one reason why the question matters, namely animals do suffer and they do "speak". Certainly not in human terms, but they do express their sufferings and emotions. Our (= human's) problem is that we just not understand their expressins or languages. But it is the concern of science to understand and translate those langauges. Biology and etology, among other fields are working succsessfully onto that path.

Put on a different track: paysans and indigenous people are more suited to understand the languages of animals than we "normal westerners" are.

We are morally and intellectually forced to protect nature and its biiodiversity, for the output of that concern goes far beyond the mere human existence.

I am not trying to be a stickler as regards the usage of language, but in one sense, I would say that, technically speaking, there is really no such thing as "animal ethics". There are animal rights, and there is a branch of ethics (a uniquely human enterprise) which speaks to those rights. The way I (as an ethicist) would ask this question is, "How do the ethical concerns which a discussion of animal rights raises differ from those associated with normative ethics?"

We humans are the species which Mary Midgley referred to as "The Ethical Primate", and which Christian Smith refers to as "Moral, Believing Animals". As far as we can tell, we are the only animal which needs to "do ethics". The others are not "bent" in the same fashion that we are. Mark Twain expressed it well when he said, "Man is the only animal that blushes, or needs to."

@Bill, thanks. I´m no ethicist but I´d like to follow the discussion and felt a bit desoriented all the time.

Ethics is also that those that have the power to socially dominate others will not do this. This can happen in human-human relationships, human-animal relationships, animal-human relationships (e.g. animals reared by hand) and I do not exclude this also can happen in animal-animal relationships (within social groups). Are the underlying biological mechanisms (e.g. 'feelings influencing behavioural expression) the same for all these relationships?

Dear M. Ramachandra Mohan,

Please, determine, what do you mean on animal ethics? Is it a kind of behaviour of animals towards to each living being (including man)? Or is it a sort of human ethics concerning animals or the whole biosphere?

I note, ethical subjects are popular on RG, and generalities on the relationship science and human attitudes have been thoroughly discussed.

Regarding the scientific methodology, one should carry out some investigations in order to observe interactions between tiger and man, tiger and antelope, man and buffalo, man and cobra, rat and pitbull, rat and mouse, hen and hawk and certainly relationships between individuals of the same animal species. This is a well known field of zoology which is called simply animal behaviour. Another opportunity is to simply interview animals…

I propose to you a bit naïve human point of view which is represented in the picture of Lucas Cranach the Elder in the Garden of Eden.

Sorry but I feel that nobody is answering to the question, In what way does animal ethics differ from human ethics?

I'll try to be precise in the answer. The main question is not if it does exist or not an animal ethics. The basis for everybody is that only human are known to be conscieous of their acts and of the long-term consequences of those acts. That makes humans the only living being with moral assumptions and responsible of our acts, the only living being that can claim to another human being about the consequences of his/her decisions. That makes us, finnaly, special and really different to any other living being.

We re probably having problems to describe the concept "conscious". I'm not talking about natural interactions between species at the level, it likes me/you it does not like me/you; "we are better if we like each other". I talk about measuring the consequences of our acts at abstract levels that other species are not able to understand, and about assuming the responsibility of our acts, something that you can not be demanded to a non-human animal as you can not demand it to a small child that is already under development at these moral and legal leves.

It´s right, animals can learn and can be educated. This doesn´t mean that they have some thing like ethics, they are just conditioned. Ethics is the result of the conscious reflection about the own acting and the possible consequences for other beeings, not the fear of punishment.

Marta/Hanna,

I would yes, you both are right. The scientific (and philosophical) problem is that we do not have access to the mental state and reasoning of non-human living beings. They cannot explain in human language why they are doing this or that, or why they don't doing this or that. We are concluding they do not make ethical decisions or that there is no animal ethics without providing what scientists would call 'proof'.

It happens frequently that people apply (science) terminology based on assumption.

I just saw there is another question running: Can ethics be measured objectively? (>500 responses)...

Cheers

I agree, that is the reason why we can not claim to other species to assume any responsibility from their acts beyond training them to learn to cohabit with us.

Refer to the second question, I do not consider that we can be much objective in our measurements. But this is another story and unfortunately I don not have much time for it this semester. Tat is the reason why we have legal regulations and tribunals to take decisions based on legal requirements. Good luck in your debate

Thank you @Carlos for your thoughts. Indeed animals come to existence (were and are created by God for the believers) for nature equilibrium purpose as well as, some of them, for human needs. I think that if religions do not mention animals ethics, may be they pointed to domestic animals rights from misstatements and abuse. Of course animals express their emotions and their suffering by their language. They cry for illness as well as express their happiness when they are satisfied by a good meal for example or by the visit of a sympathetic or benefactor person ..etc...

As you mention religions, for example for Muslims, the holly book Quran speaks about many animals and the benefit of domestic ones for humans needs and their rights to be good treated. As well as some stories related to Mohamed prophet about a cat sleeping on his coat who he doesn't disturb. and the story from a good religious practicing lady who abandon her cat without foods, as the animal suffered from hunger, prophet says that she is in hell despite of her religiosity. And the story from an alcoholic man who met a thirsty dog in the desert and gave him to drink his rest of water, prophet said that this man is in paradise as he rescued the dog... I think that religions have asked to take care with animals....

Dear Marcel,

You are right. I have spent a lot of time on commenting "Can ethics be measured objectively?" Of course, it was good to discuss because everybody has been right to be an expert in this field. I think scientifically not determinable discussion subjects are a good choice because one can prove nothing however, everybody can show his/her real or virtual abilities. This chat is a similar one...

Marcel,

I believe an animal can experience shame, because the animal is aware of relationships, either with other animals, or with humans, which generate shame. Shame is social in its nature. What an animal cannot feel, what we have no warrant to assume based on any research that I have ever seen, is that an animal can experience guilt. In the phenomenon of guilt, there is a "split" in our consciousness so to speak. When I feel guilt one part of me stands in judgment on the other part of me. My own conscience condemns my own actions. I feel disapproval from that part of me which tells me I have done wrong. I feel a psychological "weight", and I am ill at ease, as a result of having wronged another by my actions or my words. Animals cannot feel guilt. Animals do not have moral codes per se. Humans "do ethics". It appears that only humans do ethics. It is one of the unique human universals which Donald Brown documents in his "Human Universals" (p. 139).

I speak not in Freudian terms because I cannot embrace Freud's understanding of the superego, but to borrow from them a bit, my "id" so to speak, is lured by the desire to do wrong. My "ego" feels the pull or magnetism of that wrong behavior. When I refuse such a temptation, there is something akin to the "superego" (but I would hold that it resides within the individual alone and not within the wider human race) which tells me that such an action is not good and not in my own best interest. This which is akin to the superego also stands in judgment on me when I am aware that I have done wrong. Inasmuch as humans are triadic in their awareness, whereas other animals appear to be only dyadic in their awareness, there is no reason to believe that they have a differentiated sense of self as a moral agent such as we humans experience. Twain was onto something when he said we are the only animal that blushes.

Hi everyone - interesting area, and one I've worked in as a government policy officer for some time. Mohan - I'm not entirely certain of what you mean by 'animal ethics' however, your response to Bill is a statement of animal rights rather than an ethical approach as far as I can see, but this is a deep area my friend, so I'm glad you've opened it up for discussion! I hope my comments below are pertinent and of interest, if not I apologise!

Very briefly, and from my perspective, there are two areas to consider, the RELATIVE CAPACITY TO SUFFER and the WAY IN WHICH WE (as dominant species on the planet) ACCOMMOCDATE OTHER SPECIES to respect their needs as well as ours (which is where we come to animal rights vs a more utilitarian view of animals).

Firstly , the RELATIVE CAPACITY TO SUFFER. Sources of difference from humans are (1) the presence/absence of 'sentience', and (2) the actual species-specific capacity for 'distress' which includes the rellative impact of pain on neurophysiological wellbeingh following injuries of equivalent magnitusde (eg a broken hind limb) as well as 'social distress' due to disruption of communities etc (which I might add is something that we don't take sufficient account of where there are wars etc.)..

re SENTIENCE: In purely scientific terms, we can't 'know' what is going on inside an animal's brain and we don't have sufficient knowledgeable empathy to interpret their responses as being automatic or 'considered'. However, we don't truly know what goes on in another person's head, but we can see they have learnt from previous experience and can carry that knowledge through time. If we assess animals in the same way then there are a number that may be aware, but we can't be certain on that. Sentience however implies more than merely awareness - it requires the ability to 'feel'.

The thing is, as someone who has owned and looked after dogs, cats, chickens and when working as a clinicial cattle, horses, sheep, otherpeople's dogs, cats fish etc etc etc - I know there are moment when you see through the externalities and actually can see what's going on inside these magnificant beings, to the level where you know how to behacve to elicit an understanding in the animal that you're working with them to get them to bahave a certain way.As far as Koch's postulates go this is pretty darned good - it's repeatedly predictive, and for me works across a few species (all vertebrates, mostly mammals), Trouble is it's uncontrollable - when it happens it just happens, and you can't repaeat it on cue. So much for the limist of experimantal science vs experience!

Most groups these days appear to accept that sentience is a feature of vertebrates, and this has led to a real issue in the 'animal welfare' area, in relatuion to minimising avoidable suffering. Which leads to the second of the aspects of suffering, the CAPACITY FOR DISTRESS. And I would define distress in relation to this discussion as the capacity for awareness of one's state while suffering leading to the state where normal neurophysiological processes are disrupted. A distressed being is no longer able to cope, mentally and/or physically, with the situation. The content of consciousness in such a being may include any/all of the following - fear, confusion, panic and terror.

Distress is a neurophysiologically derived state of awareness, and filters perceptions. The existence of the capacity for distress seems to have a neurophysiological basis - emergent from physical complexity of the brain. We can see and study that structural complexity in vertebrates but at this time perhaps not the functional complexity behind it. In addition, that functional complexity may exist in different ways in other genera/phyla - such as certain cephalopods.

On first principles and as far as we know at the present time, the structure of the mammalian brain seems to be reasonably consistent and immensely complex so it is reasonable to ascribe the capacity for suffering to all members of the sub-phyla. But what about non-mammalian vertebrates? OK - similarity of structure, but no-one has worked out what level of similarity is needed for the capacity to suffer to be present. We also know that the pain pathways in hominids are quite different (and faster!) than those in ruminants etc - so it's possible that different animals may well be aware of pain in different ways - the pain of a broken leg in humans seems all-consuming, perhaps it's not the same in a dog! And then we also know that herding species - such as sheep - can 'cope' better in unfamiliar suroundings when left in a cohort group known to them and that they will in fact choose to spend more or less time with particular individuals in those groups - whereas mambers of other species are happier on thier own (in some cases dependent on the individual history of that animal - tigers are solitary in the wild but can be incredibly social animals.

So there's significant proiblem number one for animal ethics as opposed to human ethics - even if you ascribe sentience to another species, what is the capacity to cope with suffering before it becomes distress? I think it's reasonable to take the position that - if we accept an animal is sentient - then 'distress' can be identified through behavioural maens. After repeated behavioural assessments we may be able to interpolate some general rules about where the limits lie, but I would hope such an approach is only an interim one. In addition, relying on 'empthy' to define when animals are suffering and in danger of becoming distressed by analogy with humans may have definite limits.

I believe this is where animal ethics is really important - and very different to human ethics - in setting guidance on what is 'acceptable' in relation to scientific evidence and using a 'risk management' approach. We apply this approach in Australia in relation to the use of animals in research as well as in farming etc - but there are other considerations when regulating such activities.

Which brings me to the second major point - the WAY IN WHICH WE (as dominant species on the planet) ACCOMMOCDATE OTHER SPECIES. Morally we are driven to respect what we understand of their needs/aspirations etc, but legally and socially we have regarded them as 'chattels' - goods that can be owned annd traded regardless of the impact on thie well being. This is where we come to the issue of animal rights - humans are meant to be afforded certain rights under the UN Declaration of human rights: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ . Animals however do not.

SO we tend to have a 'balancing' act where the regualtion of animal use is concerned, and this is the area of animal welfare decision making. What's the benefit from the animal use to human society vs the impact on the animal/animals/species concerned? This approach covers research, farming, conservation etc. and necessitates consideration of religious, sociological, economic, scientific and social matetrs as well as ethical aspects, when coming to a decision under the specificset of circumstances. While science in these cases can inform decision makers about the effect of the use on the animal/animals/species/ecosystem, the ultimate decision may not be the same in different countries or even institutions because of these other considerations.

Cheers and best wishes to all.

There is no ethics for animal because have no creativity and innovation in their life since from the beginning the way to eat is constant in the same manner by instinct. Herbivora need grass only without any innovation to make fried grass or noodle grass. Omnivora also similiar in mating in classical way without any model but human using any model with animation video and also with very unfamiliar in animal world such as Homosexual. Terrible

@Allan Sheridan,explanation as "This approach covers research, farming, conservation etc. and necessitates consideration of religious, sociological, economic, scientific and social matetrs as well as ethical aspects, when coming to a decision under the specificset of circumstances. While science in these cases can inform decision makers about the effect of the use on the animal/animals/species/ecosystem, the ultimate decision may not be the same in different countries or even institutions because of these other considerations.""is highly appropriate and to do justice for mankind.

There have been reports about the possibility to anticipate others' mental states by various animals (eg. crows, primates). As it seems, it may be particularly important for animals living in large social groups. If the animal can predict likely patterns of conduct of other individuals, it can also be involved in interactions more favorable to himself.

The dynamics of interaction, such as in a herd of primates, is often governed by a set of "rules" - which can be under the control of most dominant individuals. This can't be a basis for talking about conscious "ethical" choices among animals. But maybe we can call such a set of rules as "morality"? It is obvious very simple morality: you will be punished if you do this or that, or you will be rewarded by doing something in a certain way.

But youngsters and individuals migrating from other groups, need to learn these rules. Can one see there a similarity to the human moral principles - so different among different cultures?

@Mariusz, I agree to your statement resp. the ethics of animals. But the empirical rules propagated by the dominant members of the animal group are no "moral", they are simply rules of advantageous behaviour for the species or at minimum for the small group (swarms, flocks, shoal, herds etc). I´ve problems to accept the collective behavior of a swarm of fishes as"moral". Moral is like ethics a kind of conscious definition of rules.

The problem with bioethics is that this discipline was proposed as a way to improve the quality of research and the researcher , making the researcher besides its skills also was able to think human judgment , academic and social (Potter, Bioethics: A bridge to the Future) . Today bioethics has hyper branched into a bureaucratic monster that prevents -under the theory fear- any scientific proposal. Bioethics exercised by persons not trained in bioethics is the equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition or the vision of Vatican about the theory of Galileo. We must empower researchers on bioethics and demand resolutions attached to scientific research and remote to subjective criteria . Scientists base our findings on real evidence. Bioethical restrictions are due to a system of beliefs based on fear . Science needs best bioethicists

By the way, I work in bioethics and ecosophy

*** Origin of the left brain and right brain can be traced back to 500 million years ago, which would go back to the very beginning vertebrates. Animals also have a left and a right hemisphere, responsible for emotional and analytical processing (Macneilage et. al. 2009).

*** Recent studies show that, the complex tunnel making is genetically programmed into the DNA of a mouse. I do not have a citation, I apologize.

Any behavior that species have adapted are usually good for their survival and have passed the test of "natural selection." Let's take one example : DOG. Why do dogs protect their owners ? Because, they are genetically programmed to take care of the "leader of the pack." This is good for the survival of the pack. Although they cannot think deep about the consequences, etc., genetically, they have inherited very strict CODE OF CONDUCT and ACCEPTABLE SOCIAL BEHAVIOR.

Given the simplicity of a dog brain compared to humans, I guess, this genetically programmed behavior code can be called ETHICS ...

Clearly, the CODE OF ETHICS will be significantly different for other species, e.g., lions, which occupy a completely different trophic level. They are apex predators, so, clearly, their code will be different.

@Hanno

I agree with you about the lack of symptoms of "morality" in behaviour of fish. But I have spoken about primates.

Personally, I now have no doubt about the presence of consciousness in monkeys, and many other vertebrates. As one can read in Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness (The Francis Crick Memorial Conference, 7-July-2012):

"The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from experiencing affective states. Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates."

I rather wonder how big are, at the functional level, the similarities in brain activity among humans and monkeys. In my opinion they are significant. So taking into account "monkey mind" hypothesis, we can speak about "monkey morality".

@Mariusz, I agree completely with your opinion and ideas resp. primates. I´m totally convinced that they have consciouness. But I´m still not sure that they have developed ethics or moral, really no idea!

Dear Tolga, TY for your last answer. No problems with your description af accepted animal behavior and inherited or educated transfer of these rules. But don´t call this ethics, the abstracted and reflected and socially weighted principle of living together.

I red in several comments: 'good' for species. In evolutionary biology, people will argue with 'good for the genes' or 'good for the individual'

Is ethics scale dependent?; feed captives with mice (e.g. animals in zoos), use mice for experiments (e.g. laboratory), remove mice with traps from houses (e.g. mice as 'pest' species). Some human acts killing mice are apparently allowed, others have to pass via commissions, although there is no ultimate difference for the final fate of the mice, .e. they are killed, Interestingly, ethical approaches are against Darwinian thinking selecting the best or the strongest. Although humans are considered as products of nature by evolutionary biologists at least some people apparently do not follow the classical processes found in nature: i.e. selecting the strongest dominating the other (see questions related to religion). Can human ethics be a product of natural selection, and if so why? What are the evolutionary benefits to apply ethic behaviour from a survival or reproductive point of view?

@Hanno, i agree. "Learned ethics' and "Genetically acquired acceptable behavior'" are different. However, all animals have the capacity to learn ... The difference is in the capacity for learning. So, for example, since the dog brain is simpler (i.e., less learning capacity), the ethics they can learn will be simpler (more like, based on FEWER rules). However, clearly, some of them are compatible with humans (e.g., protecting your family) ...

Dear Tolga,

I would like to look at you when persuading a tiger that eating meat is an enormous waste of material and energy. I am also eager to know the arguments of the same tiger. It would be interesting to see the emotional battle of this tiger’s mind between his jungle taught ethics and genetically acquired acceptable behaviour.

Well, don't we teach our domestic animals the do's and don'ts according to 'our' rules?. This tiger dear Andras will for sure be challenged between your "taste" and your "suggestion" however, if you take her baby and teach it how to jump through a ring of fire, he will not think twice whether it is acceptable or not. Genetically they might have programmed to stay away from fire but 'education' might change it. Again the dilemma between nurture and nature. Also, I strongly believe that 'survival' is conducting the rules for all species. It's non-ethocal from the alpha wolf's perspective and Omega wolf wanting to mate his wife or his daughter. And this "pack order' has a reason for the survival of the pack.

There is one point that should be clearly set out. There are, as it happens, evident differences between animals and humans. No question aboput that. The point however is whether there is (still) anyone wanting to argue that the difference is of nature. I personally think (and I can bring a number of references and supports) that those differences are not of nature, but of degrees, i.e. gradients. The rationale lies in the theory of evolution, indeed.

Hence, both from the cognitive as well as from the ethical standpoints the differences are quatlitative. Aristitle and the Aristotewlian tradition (= differences in nature) is to be left far behind. Then the road can be open to arguments with more reasonable arguments and claims.

Dear Leyla,

What is the connection between animal ethics and jumping through a ring (say without fire)? What is the difference between animal behaviour and animal ethics?

I am only a humble entomologist: I have no idea on animal ethics.

Animal behaviour is inherent to animals, we try to understand it. Animal ethics belong to our moral concerns about our relationship with other species.

It seems to me this conversation is mixing two issues - whether ethical concepts can be justifiably applied to non-humans and what ethical status non-humans hold within human ethical systems. To apply ethical terminology to determined behaviour is contrary to the normal understanding of ethics, and I think it would require some fairly strong defence. Ethical behaviour is normally considered to be based on choice. You are not morally responsible for actions you could not avoid doing. Clearly genetically determined behaviour does not warrant the term "ethical" under such a conception, while learned behaviour in animals can only be considered ethical if you hold that animals, when conditioned, have the ability to choose to ignore that conditioning (which would be a fairly radical approach).

Regarding the ethical status of animals within human ethical systems, I tend to agree with the analysis of Hans Jonas's analysis that human ethical systems have historically only considered human:human interactions at all ("The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of Ethics for the Technological Age" (University of Chicago Press, 1984). However, many ethical systems, including Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Spinoza, down to modern theories like Floridi's Information Ethics, base ethical assessment on Being, under which that which promotes being is good and that which inhibits or destroys it is evil. So many historical ethical systems can easily be extended to include human treatment of animals and plants on the basis that helping them flourish is better than harming them, simply because its always better to flourish than decay.

Brandt I think you are spot on. When we speak of training animals and them subsequently evidencing what appear to be "ethical" understandings of some sort, due to that training, I believe that all we are really doing is artificially adding to their interactional repertoire, most of which is genetically predetermined. The results of such actions simply do not qualify as ethics in any meaningful sense.

Question is like this man=animal or conversely animal=man. Lately I was engaged in a discussion pointing out a research which claims that man is not smarter than animal. However, animals are animals, they live in jungle and are bound to follow its law. They have no escape from being predators or being prey and in this way a balance is made in what is called ecosystem. However, humans have consciousness with all its attributes at a higher rather much higher level, therefore, humans can evaluate consequences of their action and speech. This, therefore, makes difference between animal ethics (if they have it except the survival extinct continuity of the species) and human ethics (which includes duty/responsibility towards animals). Only a political economy can accept that humans are no different from animals because of "survival of the fittest".

Perhaps a significant difference between animals and humans is that humans developed techniques to perceive/observe at a much wider spatiotemporal scale than animals. Humans can see how the whole world is changing because of human impact. If human perception and related mobility would be limited to the local territory/garden, only knowing the neighbours, would this significantly reduce human ethics?

Yes,

Jains can do it. But, generally humans have a hierarchy of ethical principle. By the way, humans should stop inhaling air, because a number microorganism get killed are find a hospitable place to live in. But what about those which die.

Reincarnation!

Dear Marta-Ines,

What you have classified as animal ethics must be a part of human ethics towards animals.

Do you not see that Allah is exalted by whomever is within the heavens and the earth and [by] the birds with wings spread [in flight]? Each [of them] has known his [means of] prayer and exalting [Him], and Allah is Knowing of what they do.(Chapter 24:41)

That is bedrock of ethics for animal

Dear All,

One day the chairman of the Animal Academy of Sciences and Arts (it happened to be an elephant) told its secretary, a dog: It is high time to publish a communiqué on our ethics. The secretary answered: Sir, I am afraid, it does not exist. No problem, you will have two days to prepare one because humans (you know those irrelevant and egoistic beings who call themselves Homo sapiens destructivus) are chatting about it for a long time on RG.

Dear All,

Animal ethics is mostly an anthropomorphic notion until the EU announces a competition in this subject. Then one should write some studies, articles and books and animal ethics as a scientific field will be born soon.

I think European folklore and literature dealt with this question a bit more deeply than we do it.

The most known of them is the poem of Johann Wolfgang Goethe: Reinecke Fuchs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynard

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reineke_Fuchs_%28Goethe%29

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2228

@Marcel,

Interesting!

Marcel,

People learn human attitudes automatically but I think they would need to read books or at least fables. Fables belong to our first childish experiences. Trouble is, many of us forget quickly that we were children, and we substitute simple but eternal truths with sophisticated false rules of actual society order. Certainly, many humans do not care for what is 'good' or 'bad' for another being if he/she can have some benefit. Does this belong to human ethical practice or egoistic human behaviour?

I note chidren do not lie as much as adults do. This means that simple and childish (primirive) ethical rules work.

Hello again,

people need to read books or to talk with others to compare experiences. If there is overlap in what is perceived as 'good' versus 'bad' personal convictions can be reinforced.

Marcel,

Let us see an ancient experience:

What is bad? Bad is if my neighbour steals my cow. What is good? If I steal the neighbour’s cow. For many people it is so simple, and they are sure, they do not need to read any books or consult other people.

Interesting. Are aspects perceived as 'good' or 'bad' relative concepts? Something can be perceived as good for person A and bad for person B. Something can be perceived as 'good' today, but not tomorrow. We therefore require democracy to make a decision at the community level, and frequently adjust opinions to the permanently dynamic world. Or not?

Yes, Marcel. This is the theory. But the relationship to the neighbour's cow is an eternal practice. You should only watch the news.

This Ethic approach covers research, farming, conservation etc and necessitates consideration of religious, sociological, economic, scientific and social matters as well as ethical aspects,It is high time to publish our ethics.many historical ethical systems can be extended to include human treatment of animals and plants on the basis that helping them flourish is better than harming them.

Very often people confuse bioethics with biosafety and welfare. How to differentiate a priori each term? Well, If three paragraphs are needed to explain a definition, then that's bioethics. If a commission inspect the Lab in order to verify compliance with a minimum number of rules, that's biosecurity. And finally if the cages of laboratory animals are more expensive than a thermocycler, that's welfare.

@Ramon Portillo

bioethics , biosafety and welfare are altogether different concept.This discussions are to be understand that whether animal ethics differ from human ethics? Minimum number of rules, and biosecurity in the lab animals and animals suppliers are up course mandatory or other vice lakes of animals are disappear by the name of demonstration across the globe.Kindly go through links How they are manege and efforts made to conserve and sustainable ecosystem. Ethic approach covers not only research but also farming, conservation and necessitates consideration of religious, sociological, economic, and social matters .

http://www.oxfordanimalethics.com/

Ja! ja! Ramón, great sense of humor!

Take a look at "Fundamentos de bioética," vol. I, by Diego Gracia Guillén. It is very concise, universal, and exact.

The conversation is turning back to bioethics: which was pointed out early on. I would like to call the attention to the fact that theres is no ONE bioethics, but to say the least three, thus: Anglo-saxon bioethics, european continent bioethics (into which Gracia's book belongs), and Latin-american bioethics. Hence, more than one view should be taken into account.

Africans (kn general do have much to say about bioethics, as it is indeed the case. The literature abut it is large and rigorous.

Yet, the core remains the same: human ethics is not sufficient to cope with the issue about animal ethics. Bioethics, particularly thanks to P. Singer's contributions has delved into the subject more successfully.

Animals are not inferior to human beings in nature: only in degree. Therefore the issues about animal ethics can consider the issue about degrees and layers (levels).

Dear Carlos,

What does it mean "Animals are not inferior to human beings in nature: only in degree."?

What´s the degree of being for animals??

Human or animal ethics is a semantical confusion. And for sure not a question of good nor bad). Ethics is applied. Human are able to apply ethics instead of acting by primitive instinct. Animals do the other way round.

@Alexia, right that there exists a semantical confusion, wrong that animals always act ruled by primitve instincts. Just have a look on nature and at your picture compagnion!

@Hanno.The animal on my picure had just been feeded, sure he is kind!

Yes if SCIENCE has not decoded their language, feelings, thoughts

Is it not a science to be take care this aspect

I believe that every living thing has the inalienable right to life.scientific research must be heavily regulated.

Dear Marcel, I agree in that we cannot (not any longer!) speak of differences in nature, unlike the Aristotelian tradition. Evolutionary biology, among other fields, has clearly brought out that the same and common feature we all living beings share lies in our own nature, namely biology. As a matter of fact ethics adnd the like are only cultural expressions of our biology.

Yet biology, as you righlty say, is a complex system. That is it is made up by diversity and cooperation, integration, learning and adaptability. In other wors, when recognizing the importance (the down-to-earth pole) of biology we are cerrtainly not arguing infavor of a biological reductionism.

Ethics, in the largest and deepest sense of the word, anchors in our biological nature, and it is its expression. Briefly said, ethics is to enhance life in all its expressions, modes and layers. Ciao to anthropomorfisms!

I agree that if scientific research has to be heavily regulated, this should in principle also to the case for food consumption, for instance when living being A might over-consume living being B...

Why do so many people eat when they are not really hungry and when it is not truly necessary ?

The scientific endeavoour can be regulated - but by scientists themselves, provided the fact that they ought to give accounts to both the state and to the civil society. We should all be worry by external and hierchical controls over science.

The question concerning animal ethics and food (or nutrition) needs be framed by another most sensitive issue, namely nutrition sovereignty - a concern that (I beleive) has not been considered alog the conversations originated by the question above. Furthermore, nutrition sovereignty encompasses the way-of-life in our societies.

I'm not sure what controls exist over biomedical use of animals in other countries but would refer concerned members of this forum to Australia's Code for the care and use of animals for scientific purposes 8th edition (2013) - available online through http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/ea28

I'sd also note thast the requirement to use animals in biodmedical work dates back to the Nuremberg Code which was adapted by the World Medical Association. It is worth reading as well in the historical context from which it arose - see http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199711133372006 if interested.

Cheers to all

Allan

@Allan Sheridan

Whether anti-natural, cruel, horrible, unethical aspects are covered in the law of use animals in biodmedical work dates back to the Nuremberg Code which was adapted by the World Medical Association and biomedical use of animals in anycountries.If so kindly provide details to scientist in particular and public in general.

Oooops! Who truly says that science does not have a moral imperative of its own? That is old-fashioned -seen from the perspective of spearhead philsophy of science and the social and cultural studies on science and technology-, as well as epistemologically untenable. That might be true for classical science but certainly not for current sceintific research. Numerous events, conferences, papers and books around the world in various languages provide examples enough.

Scientific innovation does not go without saying. On the contrary, scientists themselves have become capable of bringing to the frorefront erthical, social, and political conserns regarding their own enterprise. Science does not need religious committees to control it. Those times are past, behind.

The concern about animals can be framed within two basic references, thus: on the one side the use of animals in labs for whatever justifications you want to provide; and, on the other side, the day-to-day relationship to them in which case the dietary and nutritional aspects are to be brought openly upon the table. Both aspects cannot be sharply separated. It seems that the focus has remained in most part of theses conversations on the first issue, not without a fine justification. Necessaty as it is, it is as yet not enough.

I agree, Science has necessarily to have moral requirements because science is done by scientists with our own limitations, too many times moral limitations, giving more importance to econocmic or prestige prioririties over ethical priorities. That is why ethic committees are needed at all levels of our activities, from field to lab research, data analyisis, publication of real data, etc.

Not only food, but also mental state are important aspect in ethics. 'Stressed' animals will behave differently than 'unstressed' animals, also having consequences for scientific results (e.g. results from stressed versus other individuals). An example: Wildlife birds rarely lay eggs in small sterilized cages with a lot of food (ad libitum). The same wildlife birds may start to lay eggs in large unsterilized aviaries containing natural elements, like natural vegetation. I presume the same applies for humans, e.g. green space in cities (e.g. parks, woodland) lowers stress, independent from food availability.