Animal ethics deals with the question how nonhuman animals should be treated. This implies a discussion about whether animals are morally important for their own sakes and, if so, what consequences follow for human action. Traditionally, animal ethics is concerned with individual animals and their inherent value, their interests, and their preferences.
As in business ethics and many other ethics disciplines, the most common approaches of animal ethics are consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics. What these approaches have in common is that they include sentient animals in the sphere of the morally relevant. This means we should take them into account for their own sakes when deciding about the rightness or wrongness of our actions.
Consequentialism and Utilitarianism
In 1780, the father of utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham, wrote down a short but famous fragment on what we would...
- Amos N, Sullivan R (2014) The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare, 2014 report. BBFAWGoogle Scholar
- Bentham J (1780/2007) An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Dover Publications, MineolaGoogle Scholar
- Braithwaite V (2010) Do fish feel pain? Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Brambell FWR (1965) Report of the technical committee to enquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive husbandry systems. HMSO, London. Cmnd 2836Google Scholar
- Nussbaum M (2007) Frontiers of justice; disability, nationality, species membership. The Belknap. Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- Regan T (1983) The case for animal rights. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
- Regan T (2006) Sentience and rights. In: Turner J, D’Silva J (eds) Animals, ethics and trade: the challenge of animal sentience. Earthscan, London, pp 97–86Google Scholar
- Singer P (1975/2009) Animal liberation. HarperCollins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- The Journal of Animal Ethics, all issues, University of Illinois PressGoogle Scholar
- Vetter S, Vasa L, Ószvári L (2014) Economic aspects of animal welfare. Acta Polutechnica Hungarica J Appl Sci 11(7):119–134Google Scholar