Valéry Giroux

An important goal of animal shelters is to find adopters for animals in need of a home. Traditionally, shelters have applied strict criteria that screened out applicants. Increasingly, however, shelters are moving toward a so-called open adoption approach, which engages would-be adopters in a conversation to match them with a suitable animal; only rarely should applicants be turned down. This chapter raises two concerns about open adoption. First, the evidence about the positive effects of open adoption is much less conclusive than advocates suggest. Second, open adoption fails to signal the seriousness of animals’ well-being. However, this does not mean that shelters should return to the traditional approach, which screens out good adoptive homes and discriminates against disadvantaged groups. The chapter ends by sketching some suggestions for attenuating the tension between the goal of efficiently finding homes for a maximum number of animals and the objective of challenging dominant speciesist norms in our society.

Part I offers a set of ethical recommendations on various aspects of the everyday operations of animal shelters. The authors begin by clarifying the ethical framework on which the recommendations are based as well as setting out several overarching issues. The authors then address specific ethical questions arising in the context of the shelter’s internal structure and decision-making processes; its relationship with the public, donors, industry, and government; its role in the enforcement of animal welfare legislation; shelter operations, such as responses to overpopulation and decisions about when to end animals’ lives; how it should respond to animals in the community, such as feral cats; and issues arising in relation to shelter staff. The first part of the policy document summarizes these recommendations; the second part explains, in more detail, the reasoning behind these recommendations.

Daniel Bell and Wang Pei’s recent monograph, Just Hierarchy, seeks to defend hierarchical relationships against more egalitarian alternatives. This paper addresses their argument, offered in one chapter of the book, in favour of a hierarchical relationship between human and nonhuman animals. This relationship, Bell and Pei argue, should conform to what they call “subordination without cruelty:” it is permissible to subordinate and exploit animals for human ends, provided that we do not treat them cruelly. We focus on three aspects of their view: their argument for a hierarchical view; their understanding of cruelty; and their account of the heightened duties they claim we owe to nonhuman animals who are intelligent, domesticated, and/or “cute.” We argue that the reasons that Bell and Pei offer fail to support their conclusions, and that, even if one accepts a hierarchical view, the conclusions that Bell and Pei draw about the permissibility of practices such as killing animals for food do not follow. We conclude by emphasizing philosophers’ responsibility to thoroughly test their arguments and to engage with existing debates, especially when the practices they seek to justify involve harms of great magnitude.

Ethical dilemmas and decision-making are a persistent feature of the everyday operations of animal shelters and animal protection organizations. These organizations frequently face difficult decisions about how to treat the animals in their care, decisions that are made all the more difficult by limited funding, material resources, and human labor. Moreover, animal protection organizations must also determine how to act within and toward the wider social and institutional environment in which non-human animals are routinely exploited. The first section of The Ethics of Animal Shelters contains practical recommendations developed by ethicists in response to the ethical challenges identified by employees of the Montreal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. These challenges arise across the organization's activities, including its internal structure; shelter operations; public campaigns and advocacy work; dealing with the public, animal agriculture and governmental agencies; and their work with feral animals. The second section offers philosophical analyses of the ethical challenges unique to animal shelters. Issues explored include the killing of shelter animals; shelter animals' diets; medical decision-making procedures; adoption policies; and the role shelters might play in transforming social attitudes and norms.

Trophées, nourriture, sujets d’expérimentation, ressources, souffre-douleurs, jouets, vêtements… Depuis le Néolithique au moins, les êtres humains considèrent les animaux comme des moyens. Pourtant, les critères sur lesquels repose cette hégémonie de notre espèce n’ont pas la pertinence qui leur permettrait de justifier de tels traitements. C’est ce suprémacisme humain que l’antispécisme entend dénoncer. Dans ce court essai, Valéry Giroux bat en brèche les caricatures, et montre que l’antispécisme, par analogie avec l’antiracisme, est avant tout une base de réflexion éthique et politique. En affirmant que l’humanité doit renoncer à certains des privilèges qu’elle s’est injustement octroyés aux dépens des animaux, elle défend l’idée qu’un monde délivré du spécisme serait non pas encore parfait, mais incontestablement plus juste.

Legal systems in the Western world currently regard animals as property. This status implies that they are not subjects of rights. None of the recent legal measures aimed at protecting animals have conferred on them the legal status of person, which is arguably a necessary condition to benefit from the most fundamental individual rights. In this chapter, we argue that the type of control of animals that is based on property rights and domination is ethically unacceptable. We also argue that extending personhood and its corresponding rights to all sentient beings is the best way to ensure that they are not made to suffer unnecessarily and that they are protected from domination. While there may exist morally legitimate occurrences of human control over other animals, justice requires that we abolish all forms of their exploitation.

Plus qu’un régime ou un mode de vie, le véganisme est un mouvement social et politique visant à libérer les animaux du joug humain. S’opposant au carnisme, les véganes renoncent autant que possible à utiliser des produits ou des services issus de leur exploitation. Leurs arguments rencontrent aujourd’hui un écho de plus en plus favorable parmi les consommateurs, alors même que les animaux, sur terre et dans la mer, n’ont jamais été tués dans de si grandes proportions. Cet essai est l’occasion pour ses auteurs de montrer que la société que les véganes appellent de leurs vœux (et préfigurent par leurs pratiques quotidiennes) repose sur une conception élargie de la justice. Une justice qui devrait embrasser l’ensemble des êtres doués de sensibilité.

According to Alasdair Cochrane, liberty can have value for most animals only because it allows them to obtain other desirable things, such as well-being. With this he concludes that humans can continue to use other animals as long as they treat them well. In this article, I reject this conclusion by arguing against the positive conception of liberty in favor of its negative or republican conception. I suggest that it is sufficient for a being to be capable of agency in order to have an interest in liberty, which deserves to be protected by the right to be free.

Dans son ouvrage La libération animale, Peter Singer développe trois grandes idées : le principe d'égale considération des intérêts, le rejet du spécisme et la nécessité de mettre un terme à certains types d'exploitation des animaux, notamment ceux qui ont trait à la recherche et à l'élevage industriel. Cette oeuvre phare a connu un retentissement immense, à tel point que sa publication, en 1975, a été présentée comme le moment clef dans l'émergence du mouvement éponyme. Cependant, le mouvement de libération animale ne saurait se réduire à la seule pensée singerienne. Ce mouvement extrêmement protéiforme a fait l'objet de débats intenses à l'interne, entre les défenseurs des animaux eux-mêmes qui privilégient des approches diverses, comme à l'externe, entre ceux qui défendent le statu quo ou contestent les arguments animalistes. L'objet de ce recueil est de revenir sur le lien entre le mouvement de libération animale et les théories de Peter Singer qui, à tort ou à raison, en est perçu comme le père fondateur. Comment l'éthique animale de l'auteur a-t-elle été accueillie depuis la publication de La libération animale, et comment a-t-elle évolué? Quelle place la doctrine utilitariste occupe-t-elle dans le travail de Singer et dans les débats qu'il a engendrés? C'est en effet dans cette doctrine parente que résident les écueils auxquels s'est heurté le travail de l'auteur. C'est aussi là que son système a trouvé sa force et sa simplicité caractéristiques. C'est aussi, semble-t-il, ce qui fait la fécondité de ses idées.