Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
an animal is better off if it has nothing to do with humans. In such examples the
hands-off approach is not only morally sound but also continuous with the animal's
welfare. The same holds for other forms of AAT: maintaining stressed rodents in pet-
ting areas in educational and therapeutic institutions for the projected benefit of chil-
dren, psychiatric patients, or prisoners who may enjoy various therapeutic benefits
through this connection does not appear to promote any of the rodent's own interests.
9
The lives of these rodents apart from humans appear to be a better alternative for
them.
The same considerations help make sense of horse-assisted therapy. Justifying hip-
potherapy brings up the range of moral issues relating to equine husbandry and the
moral status of the diverse practices that it involves (racing, show jumping, dressage,
hunting, riding as such). Training horses requires lengthy instruction periods and the
use of bits, whips, and harnesses. Many of them are then kept in very small locks.
They are subjected to all of the medical interventions that cats and dogs undergo. All
of these practices would disturb liberationists. Yet where and how would horses exist
in an ideal liberationist world? Reserves might be an option in some countries in
which feral populations of horses might be feasible. But in many parts of the world,
a puritanical decision to let horses be would boil down to a horseless environment.
Liberationists would know that the argument from the animal's projected welfare is
a risky one to make, since the idea that the animal's existence justifies exploiting it
is routinely invoked in various forms, supposedly vindicating all kinds of animal ab-
use. However, I believe that in the context of AAT this justification is viable. I do
wish to add, though, that since equine husbandry appears to be economically driven
through and through, the idea that some relations between humans and horses are jus-
tified in the sense that they ultimately benefit horses does not morally cleanse all
such relationships. It is not obvious to me that practices such as racing, dressage, or
show jumping are morally justified, since they involve pain and risk of injury to the
animal and, according to Dr. Orit Zamir (DVM), can radically curtail the life span of
the horse and diminish its quality. Hippotherapy, by contrast, is not a form of human-
animal connection that appears detrimental to the horse. The utilitarian benefits for
such horses—they get to exist, lead safe and relatively comfortable lives, are not ab-
used or exploited—outweigh the price they pay.
USE VERSUS EXPLOITATION
I have so far argued that for some animals, AAT cannot be vindicated by appeals
to the overall good for the animal through its forced participation in a paternalistic
relationship with humans. Could some other framework justify using animals for
