12.05.2022

Final Review

AGENDA
  1. Participation self-assessment
  2. Review for final
  3. Reminder: please fill out an evaluation for this class (at Canvas). It's completely anonymous. Deadline is Dec. 7.


Participation self-assessment (please answer on a piece of paper)
  1. How would you describe your contribution to class discussion (in class, in groups, on index cards, after class, by email, etc.)?
    • Top contributor--Contributed on most days
    • Frequent contributor--Contributed around once a week
    • Quiet contributor--Rarely contributed to class discussion, but did contribute in groups, on index cards, etc.
  2. Is there anything else I should know about your contribution to class discussion or about your attendance?


The Final (when, where, what)
  1. The final will be on Dec 9, 11:30 - 2:30. We will review on Monday Dec 5. 
  2. The list of questions is here.
  3. Suggested length for each answer: like one RR (150-250 words). 
  4. You should make a plan for each of the questions. Use blog posts, slides, readings, your notes, and your RRs. INDEX below will help you find material.
  5. It will probably take you 1 - 1.5 hours to take the final.
Review (Dec 5)
  1. Look over the final questions.
  2. Spend 5 minutes looking at pertinent material.
  3. Write one question at the workbook or put an X beside someone else's question.
  4. We will first be talking about evaluating arguments, which is required for several of the questions.



INDEX

5. EATING ANIMALS

10.16 Animals as Food Factory farming

10.19 The Case for Vegetarianism Peter Singer

10.21 The Case for Vegetarianism Norcross, Eating Animals Slides

10.24 Meat Defense 1, Causal Efficacy Budolfson, Eating Animals Slides

10.26 Meat Defense 2, Existence Zangwill, Eating Animals Slides

10.28 Meat Defense 3, Fairness George, Cordeiro-Rodrigues, Eating Animals Slides

6. PET ETHICS

10.31 Should We Have Pets? Domestiation, Francione vs. Palmer

11.02 Friends or Family? Abbate, also use workbook

11.04 Sterilization and Euthanasia Tolstoy short story

7. ANIMAL RESEARCH

11.07 Using Animals in Biomedical Research Lab presentation, Kazez, Eisenstein

11.09 For and Against Animal Research Animal Welfare Act, Engel's argument against

11.11 European and American Regulations Brody, lexical priority vs. balancing-plus-discounting

8. ANIMAL ENTERTAINMENTS

11.14 Zoos, Circuses, and Sanctuaries Aquarium presentation, Gruen (liberty, dignity)

11.16 Animal Shows Issues: welfare, liberty, dignity, culture

11.18 Rodeos and Bullfights Rodeo presentation, cruelty and culture

9. ANIMAL LAW

11.28 Animal Law Basics Existing animal law, Sunstein on two strategies, Sunstein's proposal

11.30 Guest Speaker Non-human Rights Project, liberty rights, habeas corpus

12.2  Guest Speaker  Non-human Rights Project, owning wild animals

12.02.2022

Animal Law: Guest Speaker

AGENDA

  1. Monday: Final review post is below (it includes the questions).
  2. Once again we're delighted to welcome Shelby Bobosky, Esq. She is the executive director of the Texas Humane Network  and teaches animal law at the SMU law school.
  3. Q &A
  4. Advocating for animals in Texas
  5. Powerpoint
  6. Donate to this great cause!


The Non-Human Rights Project (hearing 1:06 - 1:38)


11.30.2022

Animal Law: Guest Speaker

AGENDA

  1. Today we're delighted to welcome Shelby Bobosky, Esq. She is the executive director of the Texas Humane Network  and teaches animal law at the SMU law school.
  2. Presentation


Clips for you to view


11.28.2022

Animal Law: Animal Law Basics

AGENDA
  1. Today: an intro to some animal law basics
  2. Wednesday and Friday: Shelby Bobosky, Esq.
  3. No office hours today


ETHICS VS. LAW
  • ANIMAL ETHICS
    • Right and wrong, obligations, rights, moral requirements, concerning animals
    • Apart from any particular legal system such as that of the US, China, Spain, Texas, or whatever. 
    • Sample question: Is it wrong to use animals in biomedical research? 
  • ANIMAL LAW
    • Rights and protections that either are or should be encoded in laws and enforced by courts
    • In a particular nation or state. 
    • Sample questions: Should it be illegal in the US to use animals in biomedical research? How are research animals protected under US law? Should existing law be strengthened?
  • ETHICS V. LAW
    • There are connections between ethics and law but they are not the same thing!


CASS SUNSTEIN, "Can Animals Sue?
  • Harvard law professor, worked in Obama Administration
  • Article, annotated
  • Main ideas--
    1. Distinguishes ambitious vs. modest strategies for increasing legal protection of animals
    2. Gives overview of existing animal law
    3. Sunstein's "modest" proposal


1. Ambitious vs. modest strategies for achieving more protection of animals
  • Ambitious: expand rights for animals
  • Modest: no new rights, just new ways of supporting existing rights

Ambitious: expand rights for animals
  1. Reform existing laws (we discussed reforming Animal Welfare Act)
  2. Develop new legal status for animals--make them persons, not property (Next time!!)

Modest strategy (Sunstein)
  • Diagnosis: main problem is lack of enforcement of existing law
    • not enough inspectors, police, prosecutors
  • Solution: more private lawsuits as opposed to more criminal prosecution





2. Overview of existing animal law

FEDERAL LAW: ANIMAL WELFARE ACT (overview and lab animal highlights)
  • Lab animals: applies, but not to mice, rats, birds, cold-blooded animals 
  • Farm animals: doesn't apply except during transportation; doesn't apply to rodeos
  • Zoos and aquariums: applies to warm-blooded animals, doesn't apply to birds
  • Pets: applies to those in pets stores and during transport
MORE FEDERAL LAWS:
  • Endangered Species Act (here)
  • Humane Slaughter Act (here)
    • covers "livestock"--no laws covering birds or fish
  • Marine Mammal Protection Act (here)
  • Horse Protection Act (here)
STATE LEVEL: ANIMAL CRUELTY LAWS (example: Texas)
  • Pets and wild animals: applies to those you have taken into your custody
    • most provide food and shelter and not abandon
    • can only kill with owner approval
    • third offense is a felony
  • Farm animals: "generally accepted" practices are legal
  • Lab animals: doesn't apply at all
  • Hunting: "generally accepted" practices are legal
  • Zoos, aquariums, rodeos: doesn't apply 
NEW STATE LAWS (not covered by Sunstein):
  • California Proposition 2 (here)



2. Sunstein's modest proposal: more lawsuits to secure enforcement of existing animal protection laws


 Human plaintiffs -- goal is to help animals but you sue on your own behalf
Doctrine of standing: you can't sue in a federal court just because you didn't like something you saw at the Dallas World Aquarium or Rodeo or an animal lab.  You have to show that (a) you were injured, and (b) "your injury is 'arguably within the zone of interests' protected or regulated by the statute in question," and (c) "you must show that your injury is not widely generalized, that is, it must not be shared by all other citizens." (Sunstein p. 255)

(A)  Informational injury – sue Aquarium for hiding information about some of the exhibits (hypothetical example)

 

(B) Competitive injury – e.g. an AWA-compliant lab sues a non-compliant lab because the compliant lab suffers a financial disadvantage


(C) Aesthetic injury – e.g. worker sues company for having to see animals suffer in a way that's prohibited under AWA.  You sue your neighbor because you constantly have to look at his neglected dog.

Are these lawsuits now possible?

  • To some extent, yes
  • He's arguing that laws should be amended to make them more possible 




Animal plaintiffs -- there isn't always a human plaintiff, so we ought to permit animals themselves to sue



  1. Human lawyer would represent animal plaintiff--the injured party
  2. Same as when a child sues with adult legal representation
  3. Doesn't mean the animal is considered a person. Non-persons can already sue--corporations, the estate of a deceased person
  4. Could only sue for injuries prohibited under existing law
  5. Remedy would have to be meaningful to the individual animal suing


11.18.2022

Animal Entertainments: Rodeos and Bullfights

 AGENDA

  1. Presentation
  2. Reminder: no class Monday
  3. After Thanksgiving--a week on animal law 
    • existing laws & moderate reforms (Monday)
    • major reforms (Wednesday & Friday, Shelby Bobosky, Esq.)
  4. Culture and Cruelty


Culture or Cruelty?
75% -- should criticize cruelty, not defer to culture
25% -- should defer to culture, not criticize cruelty

Compromise: criticize, but carefully
  1. Understand the practice first 
    • What do the animals experience?
  2. Understand how the practice fits into the culture
    • Example: Bernard Rollin explains how rodeo fits into Western culture and ranching
  3. Assess whether it's real culture or performative 
    • Rick Steves: there are a lot of tourists at bullfights in Madrid
  4. Don't overlook similar practices in your own culture
    • If you're going to judge bullfights you should also look at rodeos 
  5. Beware of xenophobia, ethnic prejudice, or racism 
    • They can make you judge some cultures more harshly
  6. Recognize common ground (so perpetrators aren't monsters)
    • Bullfighting ethic says the killing should be fast
  7. If trying to persuade, use what people already believe 
    • Example: Rollin gives ethics lectures to cowboys, ranchers, etc. He uses the fact that they are caring toward their animals to try to convince them to change some rodeo events.
  8. Realize culture is fluid 
    • Bullfighting prohibited in part of Spain (Catalonia)
    • Circus came to an end
  9. Leave advocacy to locals as much as possible (?)

11.16.2022

Animal Entertainments: Animal Shows

 AGENDA

  1. Get acquainted with some animal shows
  2. Discuss possible perspectives for evaluating them
  3. In groups, discuss perspectives
  4. RRs after Thanksgiving: RR 35 is optional and there may be one more that's required.
  5. Reminder: give the rodeo group a good audience on Friday!


Animal shows

  1. Circus
  2. Bullfighting
  3. Bullriding
  4. Rodeo (next time)
  5. Sea world orca show (see the movie Blackfish)
  6. Dog fighting (illegal)
Purposes
  1. entertainment
  2. sports
  3. gambling
  4. rituals, ceremonies

Criteria for assessing animals shows (and zoos and aquariums)

(1) Based on welfare: assess whether animals have enough food, water, space, freedom from pain, etc., to meet their basic "welfare" needs

  • Reform the show so animals have basic welfare...

  • Or retire the show if it's incompatible with basic welfare 

  • Note: does the Animal Welfare Act regulate animal shows? See below.

(2) Based on liberty: captivity is harmful, liberty is good for animals, either instrumentally or intrinsically or both.

  • Liberty is instrumentally good: it's needed for basic welfare

  • Liberty is intrinsically good: it's needed even if the animal has basic welfare

  • Reform the show so animals have enough liberty...

  • Or retire the show if it's incompatible with liberty 

(3) Based on dignity (four types)

  • All animals require "animal dignity"--must have the full life that's natural for the species

  • All wild animals require "wild dignity"--must live their own lives without human interference

  • Reform the show so all animals have "animal dignity" and wild animals have "wild dignity"...

  • Or retire the show if it's incompatible with dignity

(4) Based on culture

  • Assume that whatever else matters (welfare, liberty, dignity), human culture also matters
  • Reform the show so culture is preserved, but animals are better off to the extent possible...
  • Or retire the show if it's both bad for animals and no longer central to the culture








11.14.2022

Animal Entertainments: Zoos, Circuses, and Sanctuaries

 AGENDA

  1. New module on Animal Entertainments
  2. Dallas World Aquarium presentation


ANIMAL ENTERTAINMENTS
  1. Zoos 
  2. Animal Shows
    • Circuses
    • Sea World shows
    • Rodeos
    • Bullfights
    • Horse Races
What are our main questions?
  1. Captivity and Liberty. Is captivity bad for wild animals? Is liberty good for them?
  2. Captivity and Dignity.  Does captivity deprive animals of dignity? What is dignity?
  3. Captivity and Conservation.  Do zoos advance conservation goals?
  4. Forms of Captivity. Are "sanctuaries" much better than zoos?
  5. Cruelty and Culture. Some animal shows are specific to a particular culture. Bullfights and Spanish culture....Rodeos and the American West. Is preserving the culture a legitimate defense of these kinds of shows?


LIBERTY 

Liberty can be seen as an intrinsic good for animals--constitutive of their wellbeing
Liberty can be seen as  instrumental good for animals--conducive to their wellbeing



DIGNITY

Kantian dignity: humans have dignity because they are self-aware, adopt their own goals, and understand right and wrong.  No dignity for animals.

Political dignity: humans have dignity to the extent they are recognized as citizens in a society--can speak, assemble, vote, etc.  No dignity for animals.

Animal dignity: any being has dignity to the extent it can exercise its species-specific capacities. Wild and domesticated animals can have dignity, potentially. Many species can't have dignity in captivity.

Wild dignity: wild animals have a certain kind of dignity to the extent that they have their own lives, live in their own world, and possess a kind of sovereignty.  Captivity deprives wild animals of this sort of wild dignity. Captivity doesn't deprive domesticated animals of this sort of dignity because they don't have it to begin with.


ORCAS AT SEAWORLD






Circuses




11.11.2022

Animal Research: European and American Regulations

AGENDA
  1. Preview: next week presentations on Monday and Friday
  2. Reminder: no class on Nov. 21
  3. After Thanksgiving: animal law, Shelby Bobosky, Esq. 


How should animal research be regulated?

Baruch Brody's assumptions:
  1. Animal research is beneficial to humans (Engel says no)
  2. Animals matter (Carruthers and Descartes say no)
  3. Humans should take some sort of priority (Regan and Singer say no)


ANSWER 1: LEXICAL PRIORITY, i.e. HUMANS FIRST

  1. Lexical priority is like words in a dictionary--all the A words come before any of the B words
  2. Anything on the Human Interests list comes before anything on the Animal Interests List
  3. After satisfying anything on the A list we SHOULD satisfy interests on the B list
US Animal Welfare Act takes this approach (in so many words)



ANSWER 2:  BALANCING PLUS DISCOUNTING

BALANCING. Harm to animals must be balanced by human benefit. 

HARM TO ANIMALS
BALANCED BY BENEFIT
TO HUMANS





HARM TO ANIMALS
NOT BALANCED BY BENEFIT
TO HUMANS

Balance problems
  1. cosmetic procedures
  2. cosmetic drugs and products
  3. contact lenses?
  4. baldness treatments
  5. new headache medication
AWA doesn't demand balance but European laws do



DISCOUNTING. When considering human and animal interests, we should discount the animal interests.  By what amount? 
  1. Balancing PLUS discounting could change the outcome in the Botox case; depends on the discount rate
  2. It will change SOME research from unjustified to justified


Brody's Defense of Discounting
  • We are not generally committed to Peter Singer's principle of equality, i.e. equal interests should be given equal consideration. (p. 61)
  • We have "special obligations to ourselves, our family members, our friends, our fellow citizens, etc." (p. 61)
  • "we have a morally permissible prerogative to pay special attention to our own interests in the fulfillment of some of our central projects." (p. 61)
Objection
  • David DeGrazia & Peter Singer: If discounting non-family/friends are OK, we could discount the interests of other genders, other races. But no, that's sexism and racism.
Brody's reply





11.09.2022

Animal Research: For and Against Animal Research

 AGENDA

  1. What's going on inside labs? finish presentation
  2. How are labs regulated? The animal welfare act
  3. Mylan Engel's argument against animal research


Presenters talked about "Ethics Committees" 

  • "Ethics Committees" = IACUCs = Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees
  • We have animal research at SMU so we have to have an IACUC
  • required by the Animal Welfare Act (federal law)

Animal Welfare Act 

  1. covers animals such as hamsters, guinea pigs, rabbits, cats, dogs, monkeys
    • excluded: birds, mice, rats, cold-blooded animals
  2. regulates basic care – size of cages, food, housing, "exercise for dogs," environment that "promotes the psychological well-being of primates"
  3. requires pain and distress be minimized as much as possible
    • but there can be exceptions based on "research protocol"; e.g. the Harlow type research and the stress test discussed in the presentation
    • vets must supervise painful research
  4. AWA doesn't put limits on research goals
    • life saving science vs. new cosmetic surgery techniques
  5. requires oversight by IACUCs
    • members: must include one vet, one person from community who represents animal interests
    • they evaluate proposals and protocols
    • they do inspections and issue reports (APHIS website)


Mylan Engel, "The Commonsense Case against Animal Experimentation"
  • Argument is against all animal experimentation but he focuses on "testing" drugs and vaccines
  • wants to avoid controversial assumptions like Singer's and Regan's
  • Contemporary case: testing covid vaccines on monkeys



Engel's Argument

    1. It is wrong to intentionally harm* conscious sentient animals for no good reason. (common sense).  
    2. Therefore
    3. It is wrong to intentionally perform harmful* experiments on conscious sentient animals for no good reason. (obvious!)
    4. Animal research is done for no good reason because it can't be extrapolated to human beings.  
    5. Therefore
    6. It is wrong to do animal research.
*We'll assume (a) harming encompasses (b) inflicting suffering and (c) killing, but Engel makes three separate arguments.

Premise 3: The Extrapolation problem
  1. Dogs and chocolate
  2. LD50 example
    • "Why should anyone care how much of X proves lethal to 50 percent of rat subjects? This idiosyncratic information has no relevance to human health and well being It is no more useful than knowing whether the number of blades of grass in your front yard is odd or even." (Engel p. 220)
    •  Example where it seems useful: testing of batches of botox. LD50 does tells you how strong the batch is. If stronger than usual, then not used.

Discussion
  1. Is he saying scientists have never learned anything from animal experiments? What about Salk's polio research? What about current covid research?
  2. Can scientists do their research better, so as to overcome the extrapolation problem? What does Carbone say?
  3. What about animal research that doesn't involve testing and extrapolation?



Alternatives:
  1. Grow human tissue in vitro, use it to study diseases and drugs
  2. Use synthetic substitutes
  3. Use computer models
  4. Go directly to testing on human volunteers, using microdosing
Discussion
  1. Volunteers for covid vaccine trials were available before vaccine candidates had been tested in monkeys. Is it ethical to use them? 



11.07.2022

Animal Research: Using Animals in Biomedical Research

 AGENDA

  1. Announcement: I've reduced the number of annotations needed in the remaining annotation assignments and made the groups bigger
  2. Animal research module
  3. Presentation


Animal research questions

(1) What's going on in animal labs? (today and Wednesday)


(2) Is animal research always wrong? (Wednesday--Mylan Engel vs. Larry Carbone)

(3) How are animal labs regulated? Are the regulations sufficient? (Wednesday and Friday)



JONAS SALK
  •  Jonas Salk and polio vaccine research (Kazez 188-193) 
    • 57,000 cases of polio in 1952; 3,000 died; 21,000 left with some paralysis
    • 100,000 monkeys killed in research; no benefit for monkeys; for typing study, they were infected by drilling hole in head; after vaccine developed, tested on monkeys; after monkeys, disabled kids in "homes".
HARRY HARLOW
  • Parenting research  --  video (Kazez pp. 193-197)  
    • Variations on a theme (p. 143).  
    • Well of despair studies (p. 194).

11.04.2022

Pet Ethics: Sterilization and Euthanasia

 AGENDA

  1. Friends or family--some of both?
  2. Treatment question: should we sterilize our pets?
  3. Leo Tolstoy, "Strider: The Story of a Horse" (1886) -- Why read a short story? 
  4. Who is Tolstoy?
  5. The story and what it says about animals
  6. Is the message "actionable"?


Empathy--getting inside the minds of animals
  1. Frans De Waal -- by doing careful studies and avoiding anthropodenial/anthropomorphism
  2. Temple Grandin -- through animal science and based on vantage point of being autistic
  3. Lori Gruen -- through "entangled empathy" -- says this is the foundation of ethics
  4. Leo Tolstoy -- through art and imagination


Who is Tolstoy? LINK. (1828-1910)
  • many themes in story, but...
  • he had a serious interest in the treatment of animals
  • visited a slaughterhouse, became a vegetarian


Strider, annotated LINK
  • we will read passages and discuss what they convey










The story teaches about the plight of animals, but what could we do differently? Do any of these make sense?
  • don't spay/neuter -- it costs the animals a lot 
  • instead of spay/neuter, opt for vasectomy and ovary-sparing hysterectomy, so animals retain natural hormones
  • don't breed animals based on superficial characteristics -- don't be a "looksist" -- Westminster Dog Show
  • don't breed animals  at all -- "pedigreeism" is bad
  • stop treating animals as property

11.02.2022

Pet Ethics: Friends of Family?

 AGENDA

  1. Finish Francione
  2. Abbate: friends or family?
  3. Preview: Tolstoy short story, "Strider: The Story of a Horse"


TREATMENT OF PETS
The model makes a difference: should we think of our pets as friends or family?
  • Cheryl Abbate, "The Animals in Our Living Room: Friends or Family?"
  • We will use the workbook (top tab and QR code)
  • Abbate's article, annotated

10.31.2022

Pet Ethics: Should We Have Pets?


AGENDA

  1. Pet Ethics: The Big Picture
  2. Francione's view


Pet Ethics: The Big Picture

  1. Should we have pets at all? (Monday)
  2. Are your pets friends or family (or slaves)? (Wednesday)
  3. Should we sterilize pets? Should we breed them? (story by Tolstoy, the Russian novelist)
Three Pet Categories
  1. Domesticated animals as companions (dogs and cats)
  2. Tamed wild animals as companions
  3. Others, not companions: fish, snakes, reptiles, birds?
Domesticated animals who play a role as companions
  1. Negative view: Gary Francione
  2. Positive views:  Clare Palmer, Lori Gruen, Donaldson & Kymlicka




Law professor at Rutgers University
  1. Animals are persons (with rights), not property
  2. Argues for abolition of animal agriculture, animal research, zoos, etc. The term "abolition" is inspired by abolitionism, the movement to end slavery.
  3. Doesn't support reforms like Prop 2 and 12 in California (more space)--says they just make people more comfortable eating meat and don't solve the basic problem
  4. Against Singer's step-by-step approach to veganism
  5. Commentary on Zangwill--author who says we're doing animals a favor by breeding, killing, and eating them
  6. Against institution of having pets


What is domestication?

 



Francione's arguments against having pets
  • Francione, "Pets"
  • podcast (we'll listen to it in parts)



Argument #1: Based on sheer domestication (Francione 12:20-17:40)
  • "domestication is slavery"
  • dogs should go extinct
  • they don't fit in the animal world or the human world
  • we control every aspect of their lives
  • control and hierarchy
Argument #2: Based on legal status as property (Francione 17:40-21:20)
  • can be bought and sold, have market value
  • there are minimal requirements in state animal cruelty laws
  • but shelters can kill
  • you can ask a vet to kill
Argument #3: Based on mistreatment (Francione 21:20-26:30)
  • even if you don't mistreat, arguments #1 and #2 make the institution wrong
  • but people do mistreat
  • giving up adopted animals--is it not often or often?
  • conventionally accepted cruelty--declawing cats, tail-docking, ear-clipping


Halloween interlude: what do you think? Is there anything bad about dressing up your pets?




Clare Palmer: Defense of domesticated animals as pets
  1. What does she say?

Wild animals as pets 

  • animals taken out of the wild and tamed
  • example: falconry