John Hadley

World poverty, animal minds and the ethics of veterinary expenditure

In this paper we make an argument for limiting veterinary expenditure on companion animals. The argument combines two principles: the obligation to give and the self-consciousness requirement. In line with the former, we ought to give money to organisations helping to alleviate preventable suffering and death in developing countries; the latter states that it is only intrinsically wrong to painlessly kill an individual that is self-conscious. Combined, the two principles inform an argument along the following lines: rather than spending inordinate amounts of money on veterinary care when a companion animal is sick or injured, it is better to give the money to an aid organisation and painlessly kill the animal.

[In Press] Does a painless death harm an invertebrate?

This paper explains a meaningful sense in which a painless death can be a misfortune for an invertebrate. The account presented is a logical implication of bringing together two distinct pieces of theory: the deprivation account of the harm of death and the biocentric ethical theory developed by the New Zealand philosopher, Nicholas Agar. Combined, the two theories support the following thesis: death harms an invertebrate because it deprives the individual of future biopreference satisfaction.