In a Jack Bauer-esque terrorist standoff, is it ethical to torture a horse if it would compel a terrorist to reveal the location of a ticking bomb and save thousands of lives?
At the April 24 “Facing Animals” colloquium, this scenario is presented as one of many to explore the controversial nuances of ethical animal treatment.
“I think our intuitions provide clear direction. We ought to torture the horse,” says Patricia Herzog, panelist and author.
Not all panelists agree: Martha C. Nussbaum, a professor of law and ethics at the University of Chicago Law School, recounts a “happy story” about an Asian elephant at the Bronx zoo (named “Happy”) that liked to look in the mirror. When researchers marked her ear with chalk, Happy saw her changed reflection and became distressed. Nussbaum says this is possible evidence that elephants have some degree of self-awareness, and experience a wide range of feelings and emotions. She did not say, however, if Happy was simply self-aware or straight up vain.
Audience member and Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology Steven A. Pinker, however, maintains that different standards apply. “We don’t worry about foxes hurting bunnies the way we worry about what’s happening in Darfur and Iraq.”
Panelist Cass R. Sunstein ’75, professor of jurisprudence at the University of Chicago Law School, says he was “puzzling a lot” over another scenario offered during the discussion: is it ethical to kill a pig and harvest its organs to save five human lives?
“What about 100 pigs to save 1 person?” says Sunstein,
In the end, the panel left the audience to draw its own conclusions. FM offers this: Don’t torture kittens to compel TFs to reveal final exam answers—unless maybe it’s for a huge lecture class.
