Ethical Stances

Utilitarianism

• Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that was created by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill in the 18th century, who described the theory as "Decisions should be made on the basis of achieving the greatest good for the greatest number, considering the consequences of the decisions made.
• 

Utilitarianist view of Animal Rights

• Jeremy Bentham argued that we should be asking the question can animals suffer. Peter Singer (a more modern philosopher born in 1946 who was one of the founders of the animal rights movement after producing a book in 1975 called "Animal Liberation") also believed that animals could suffer and argued against speciesism as he believes there should be equal rights for all species, however he and many other utilitarians believe that animal rights can be compromised if there is a medical reason for doing so such as medical research involving the use of animals, as this is utilising the greatest good for the greatest number, so long as the animals are treated humanely.
• 

Contractarianism

• Contractarianism is a theory that stems from the social contract theory and theorised mostly by a philosopher named Thomas Hobbes. Contractarianism is explained as when morality is based upon an agreement. This means that many people are willing to accept morality within a society only if it maximises their self interests for example if they feel that they will benefit from acting morally e.g. when people pay taxes into a system they may not want to pay taxes, however they do so because they benefit from a good health care and defense system for paying their taxes.
• 

Contractarian view of animal rights

• Non human animals cannot enter into agreements, as they lack understanding and insight, therefore we do not have a direct ethical obligation towards them, so the only way in which animals can be protected is through indirect ethical obligations such as if their owners have a contract with somebody then this contract must be adhered to. People of a contractarian POV will consider animal welfare in circumstances that benefit them, for example in modern day many consumers prefer to buy animal produce that has been ethically produced, therefore businesses will buy from farmers that treat their animals well.

Respect for Nature

• The Respect for nature theory was founded by Paul Taylor after writing his book respect for nature in 1986. This theory suggests that because we respect nature, we have a duty to all living creatures - not just the individual animals we know as all species are valuable, not just a means to an end. They believe we should not tamper with genetics of animals and that nature should be allowed to take its course.
• 

Headless Chicken Solution

• The headless chicken solution is a theory presented by Garry Comstock in 1992. The theory suggests that by removing the cerebral cortex of a chicken (which inhibits sensory perceptions) but leaving the brain stem still intact to allow for growth and development, creates a "headless chicken" solution. This mean that the chicken will be unable to feel pain and suffering, of being kept within a confined space, but the amount of chickens produced for meat and eggs can be increased whilst the amount of pain and suffering of chickens can be decreased.
• 

Ethics of the headless chicken solution

• Reduces animal suffering overall , however the creation of such headless chickens may classed as be morally wrong to some, not because it violates the welfare of the birds but because it violates their integrity and reduces them to egg-producing machines. In response to such possibilities, a new moral imperative has emerged.
• We and they: Animal welfare in the era of advanced agricultural biotechnology (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248565312_We_and_they_Animal_welfare_in_the_era_of_advanced_agricultural_biotechnology [accessed May 13, 2017].

Utilitarian view-headless chicken solution

• Peter Singer takes a utilitarian point of view towards life, in his book Animal Liberation (1975), he speaks about how animals do experience suffering particularly those that are produced for meat and dairy products. He believes that animals should be treated as equal to humans and that animals should not suffer unless in medicinal research in which there is a need for animals to be used to benefit the greater good, but animals should still be treated as humanely as possible. In terms of the headless chicken theory, pascalev (2006) states that The headless chicken example should not violate Singer’s view since the interests of the animals are not violated. Instead, genetic engineering allows us to change the interests by changing the animals' constitution. This
• prevents them from suffering in extreme conditions as the headless chickens would lack
• consciousness and would have at most a dubious status as right-holders that might be
• compatible with the modification
• Most utilitarians would be likely to agree that the headless chicken solution does not violate an animals rights and by using this theory it is infact utilising the greatest good for the greatest number in two ways, firstly as many sentient chickens would be saved from slaughter and suffering in broiler farms etc, and also many humans will benefit from being able to eat meat but without animals having to suffer.

Contractarianism- Headless Chicken Sol

• Contractarians are likely to view the headless chicken solution as a positive so long as there is an agreement

Respect for Nature view-Headless Chicken

• Those who are from the view of the respect for nature view would be strongly apposed to the headless chicken solution, as they would feel that this violates animal ethics as genetically engineering an animal is morally wrong. They feel that animals should be left to let nature take its course therefore they would not believe in eating animals regardless of whether the animal is sentient or not.