Consider to include animal abuse

[fabianmichael]

Overview

There are certain ways in which animals are abused by today’s society which can be seen as problematic from an ethical perspective, but also in a larger context as some hunting practices are also problematic in bringing endangered species closer to extinction or being harmful in other ways for the environment.

Proposed Resolution

The license should include a section that also treats the issue of animal abuse. As the definition of this term is highly vague and depends on different individual and/or cultural factors, the license should include just the worst of all practices which can be defined in a precise way. Otherwise, it could exclude self-suppliers, (small) farms or people (e.g. Inuit) who depend e.g. farming or hunting to sustain their own life. I think it is also an important aspect of a do-no-harm philosophy/license to include a paragraph about animal abouse. However, I am not absolutely sure what should be included in here and what should be better left out. As I probably missed a lot, let’s have discussion on that topic. :-)

---

Section 4.a should add a bullet point like this:

• animal abuse

With a definiton of animal abuse under We define:

Animal Abuse: The exploitation of animals for entertainment purposes which which depend on harming or killing of animals, including animal fights, circus shows incorporating wild animals (e.g. dolphins, whales or lions). And further the production of (food) products which cannot be produced under the premise of raising animals in a way that is appropriate for their respective species (e.g. foie gras, veal), which causes them extreme pain (e.g. practices involving skinning, eating or cooking animals alive) or that promote the consumption or killing of endangered species (e.g. ortolan buntings, ivory, whaling). Finally unnecessary animal testing (e.g. for the development of cosmetical products) which involves harming, tormenting or killing of animals for the mere sense of making profit, without serving a higher purpose for humanity.

Some sources for further information:

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3960266/Octopuses-dismembered-newborn-rodents-dipped-boiling-oil-frogs-skinned-ALIVE-world-s-cruelest-dining-experiences-revealed.html
• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/ortolan-bunting-slaughter-ignored-france
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foie_gras

[Lyle-Tafoya]

I don't think this is a very good idea. Instead of adding separate criteria for animals and humans, we should recognize that A) humans are animals also. and B) There could also be non-animal entities which are deserving of moral consideration.

I propose that instead of adding a separate section for animal rights, the entire license be rewritten to be in regards to "entities". If there is a certain class of entities which can logically be deduced to warrant a difference in moral treatment, they should be categorized by those relevant traits (ie. "non-human" is not a trait). This way, the license can also respect the rights of things such as sentient AI or some kind of alien non-animal sentient entity.

I think the class of entities which is capable of suffering and/or capable of feeling pleasure is the only class I care about and would create rules in regards to, as they are the only entities capable of having a subjectively negative or positive experience. I do not care to break it up further.

[chrisjensen]

This is massive and I'm glad it's been raised. It's been a busy week and as this encompasses a lot of considerations I haven't had time to pen thoughts to this yet, but just wanted to note that I'm grateful for the contributions @fabianmichael and @Lyle-Tafoya

[tommaitland]

This also came up in #33 and I suggested inhumane treatment of animals though the definition here is way more comprehensive. I can't think of any holes to poke in it.

@Lyle-Tafoya Do you think the definition from @fabianmichael should just use broader words than animal or are you thinking something larger to encompass non-animals. "Sentient" might ge a concept we can play with, but defining sentient is a can of worms.

[chrisjensen]

Ok. Finally coming back to put some thought into this.

which involves harming, tormenting or killing of animals for the mere sense of making profit, without serving a higher purpose for humanity.

This suggests that animal harm for profit that does serve higher purpose of humanity would be ok.

I would suggest the last sentence be modified to

Animal testing for cosmetics or food products.

This would make it really clear cut (the word unnecessary adds a lot of ambiguity) and these are fairly uncontroversial exclusions for animal testing.

We should also exclude the live transport industry

Animal Personhood (@Lyle-Tafoya's comment)
My understanding of this suggestion is that we do not add a section on animal treatment, but rather define a person to be any sentient being (aka animal personhood)
Animal personhood is huge and beyond the scope of what I think we can hope to address with a license. If the license recognises animal personhood, then (obviously) it also grants to animals all the other protections to persons that the license gives, which makes the license much more ambiguous. If persons includes animals, what does it mean to prevent an animal's freedom of association, or freedom of movement within borders, and how could an organisation be sure they were not in breech of it?

[chrisjensen]

The OIE definition of animal welfare might be good enough to exclude factory farming:

1. freedom from hunger, malnutrition and thirst;
2. freedom from fear and distress;
3. freedom from physical and thermal discomfort;
4. freedom from pain, injury and disease; and
5. freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour.

[tommaitland]

The refactor in #67 added this via: the abuse, inhumane killing or neglect of animals under human control