Introduction to Non-Human Life and Death

Welcome! In this chapter, we explore the ethical relationship between humans and animals. This is a key part of your AQA Paper 1 Section B: Ethics and Religion exam. We will look at how three major ethical theories—Natural Moral Law, Situation Ethics, and Virtue Ethics—are applied to real-world issues like factory farming, animal testing, and blood sports.

Don't worry if this seems like a lot to take in. The trick is to remember the core "personality" of each theory. Once you know how a theory "thinks," you can predict how it will react to any animal issue.

The Core Theories: A Quick Refresher

Before we dive into the issues, let's look at how our three theories generally view animals:

1. Natural Moral Law (Aquinas)

Thomas Aquinas followed a "Hierarchy of Being." He believed that because animals lack reason, they are below humans. Humans have a rational soul, while animals only have a sensitive soul. Therefore, animals are essentially "for our use." However, Aquinas did warn that being cruel to animals might make us more likely to be cruel to other humans!

2. Situation Ethics (Fletcher)

Joseph Fletcher focused on agape (selfless love). This theory is person-centered. Because animals are not "persons" (in the sense of being able to make moral choices or relate to God in the same way), their needs usually come second to human needs. However, the "most loving thing" might sometimes involve protecting animals to prevent human distress or environmental damage.

3. Virtue Ethics (Aristotle)

Aristotle believed animals existed for the sake of humans. But for a Virtue Ethicist, the focus isn't on the animal’s rights; it’s on the character of the human. A virtuous person practices compassion, temperance, and justice. If you are being needlessly cruel to an animal, are you really being a virtuous person? Probably not.

Key Takeaway: All three theories generally place human life above animal life, but they disagree on why and how we should treat them.


Issue 1: Animals as Food and Intensive Farming

This covers everything from your Sunday roast to the "factory farming" methods used to produce cheap meat at scale.

Applying the Theories:
  • Natural Moral Law: Aquinas is quite clear—it is not a sin to kill animals for food. This fits the "Preservation of Life" precept because eating meat helps humans survive. However, if intensive farming is so cruel that it makes humans more callous or violent, an NML thinker might have concerns about its impact on an "Ordered Society."
  • Situation Ethics: It’s all about the outcome. If intensive farming provides cheap, nutritious food for millions of hungry people, it could be seen as the most "loving" thing (pragmatism). However, if the environmental damage caused by factory farming harms future generations of people, it might be rejected as unloving.
  • Virtue Ethics: A Virtue Ethicist might ask: "Is it temperate (self-controlled) to eat meat every day if it comes from suffering animals?" Aristotle might say it’s fine to eat animals, but modern followers might argue that factory farming shows a vice of deficiency in compassion.

Quick Review: Is it for human survival? (NML: Yes). Is it the most loving result for people? (SE: Usually). Does it show a good character? (VE: Debatable).


Issue 2: Scientific Procedures and Cloning

This involves using animals to test medicines, researching diseases, or even cloning animals like "Dolly the Sheep."

Applying the Theories:
  • Natural Moral Law: NML generally supports animal testing if the goal is to save human lives. This fulfills the Primary Precept of "Preservation of Life" (human life). Cloning is more complex—it might be seen as "playing God" and interfering with the "Ordered Society" or the natural way God intended life to be.
  • Situation Ethics: This is very pragmatic. If testing a drug on 100 monkeys saves 100,000 humans from a painful death, it is the most loving thing to do. The end (saving lives) justifies the means (animal testing).
  • Virtue Ethics: The focus is on the motive. Is the scientist seeking "Phronesis" (practical wisdom) to heal the sick? That is virtuous. Or are they testing cosmetics just for profit? That might be seen as the vice of greed.

Did you know? In Natural Moral Law, the Principle of Double Effect is sometimes used here. The "good effect" is the medical cure; the "bad effect" is the animal's suffering, which is an unintended side effect of the good goal.


Issue 3: Blood Sports

This refers to activities like fox hunting, bullfighting, or dog fighting where animal death is the primary source of entertainment.

Applying the Theories:
  • Natural Moral Law: While Aquinas says animals are for our use, modern NML thinkers often argue against blood sports. Why? Because they don't serve a "Primary Precept." Killing for fun doesn't preserve life or help an ordered society; instead, it encourages cruelty in humans, which is a "disordered" way of acting.
  • Situation Ethics: It is very hard to argue that killing an animal for "fun" is the most loving thing to do. It causes pain to the animal and doesn't significantly help the "personhood" of the humans involved. Most SE thinkers would say blood sports are not "agapeic."
  • Virtue Ethics: This is the strongest theory against blood sports. A virtuous person aims for the "Golden Mean." Enjoying the suffering of another living thing shows a vice of cruelty. It is the opposite of compassion and temperance.

Common Mistake to Avoid: Don't assume all religious people hate blood sports. Historically, some argued that hunting provided food or "managed the countryside," but for your exam, focus on how the theories (NML, SE, VE) view the "fun" aspect of it.


Issue 4: Animals as Organ Sources (Xenotransplantation)

This is the practice of transplanting animal organs (like a pig's heart) into a human to save their life.

Applying the Theories:
  • Natural Moral Law: Very supportive! The Preservation of human life is a Primary Precept. Since humans are higher in the hierarchy than pigs, using a pig's heart to save a human is a "good act."
  • Situation Ethics: Again, this is person-centered. The most loving thing is to save the dying father, mother, or child. The "agape" for the human family outweighs any concern for the animal.
  • Virtue Ethics: Using practical wisdom to develop life-saving technology is seen as a virtue. However, we must be careful not to lose our "humanity" or compassion. If it saves lives, it is generally seen as the courageous and just thing to do for the sick.

Key Takeaway: Xenotransplantation is usually supported by all three theories because the "win" for human life is so high compared to the cost of the animal life.


Final Summary Table for Revision

Issue: Intensive Farming
NML: OK (Food for humans)
SE: OK (If it feeds people efficiently)
VE: Mixed (Is it compassionate?)

Issue: Animal Testing
NML: OK (Preserves human life)
SE: OK (Pragmatic/saves lives)
VE: OK (If the motive is healing)

Issue: Blood Sports
NML: Mostly NO (Encourages human cruelty)
SE: NO (Not the most loving act)
VE: NO (Shows the vice of cruelty)

Issue: Organ Transplants
NML: YES (Preserves human life)
SE: YES (Most loving outcome)
VE: YES (Shows wisdom and care)

Exam Tip: In your AO2 (Evaluation) essays, remember to weigh these up. For example, you might argue that Situation Ethics is better than Natural Moral Law because it is more flexible and considers the specific suffering of the animal or the environmental impact!