Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
utility to animals occasioned by exploitative forms of AAT substantially promotes the
well-being of some humans in a way that makes for a better world than one in
which exploitation does not occur.
Responding to these objections need not invoke the complex evaluation of utilitari-
anism as such or the difficulties involved in weighing interests. If my previous argu-
ment is sound, considerations of an overall good only superficially imply that any-
one's interests should be compromised, so all three utilitarian variants miss the mark.
The therapeutic benefits to humans could be achieved without exploitation either
through alternative forms of therapy or through forms of AAT that use horses, cats,
or dogs. Accordingly, avoiding the use of the other therapy animals as part of AAT
does not diminish the projected overall good.
In conclusion: forms of AAT that rely on horses and dogs are continuous with the
welfare of these animals. Without a relationship with humans, an overwhelming num-
ber of these beings would not exist. Their lives with human beings exact a price
from them. But given responsible human owners, such lives are qualitatively comfort-
able and safe and need not frustrate the social needs of these creatures. A world in
which practices like AAT exist is an overall better world for these beings than one
that does not include them, and this provides a broad moral vindication of forms of
AAT that depend on these beings. On the other hand, rodents, birds, monkeys, rep-
tiles, and dolphins gain little by coercing them into AAT. Such practices are therefore
exploitative. Since the human interests that are involved can be easily met without
exploiting these beings, the moral conclusion is that such forms of AAT should be
abolished.
