Work Animals

Shelby: Can we use animals without abusing them?

Most of the responses to this question have dealt with the effects of using animals, and I am typically tentative to follow along that road, for even morally wrong actions can yield benefits, so it is often misleading to judge an action by its consequences. But on the other hand, it is difficult to imagine a deontological dilemma if the action does not result in harm of any kind.

Matt is right, of course, that perhaps both our lives and the lives of the animals would be worse if we were not to use animals. He is right also that the respectful and caring behavior of an "I-thou" relationship could be the basis of moral acceptability. To draw a weak analogy, there were slaves that were treated with a measure (to varying degrees) of decency, care, and respect. This does not serve as a measure of the permissibility of slavery.

Essentially, the possible non-harm consequences does not necessarily permit any action. Just because no harm may come from a particular instance does not mean that we should do it. Does using animals always abuse them, no. Does that mean we should use animals? I do not think so.

Question: How is the morality of an act to be determined if not from the consequences of the action?