HomeMoral Duty004. Ethics of Welfare and Management to be Resolved

004. Ethics of Welfare and Management to be Resolved

An interesting separation between the Ancient Egyptians was that no one presumed to interfere with the occupation of a different trade or work that differed from his or her own.  As written by Diodorus "no tradesman was permitted to meddle in political affairs, or to hold any civil office in the state, lest his thoughts should be distracted by the inconsistency of his pursuits, or by the jealousy and displeasure of the master in whose business he was employed."  The Ancient Egyptians feared that if no such law existed, in consequence of necessity or desire, the individual(s) would become conspicuous in public station and those (by vanity and self-sufficiency) would interfere in matters out of their sphere - A Popular Account of The Ancient Egyptians - Volume 2 - Sir J. Gardner Wilkinson, D.C.L., F.R.S. - Harper and Brothers, New York. 1854.  Note; Over 200 trade crafts and guilds were recorded in the Euphrates city of Mari before 2,400 BC.

The RSPCA, IFAW, LACS, Compassion in World Farming and the Peoples Ethical Treatment of Animals, amongst many other welfare or rights organisations, use the term ethics, based in reality on unsound interpretations of biblical texts, to justify their lobbying of Government for animal welfare legislation. This involves the protection of certain species through legislation, or alternatively to justify demonstrations against the killing of predators, pests, or using of animal skins, eating meat or conducting experiments on animals.  The main base for this ethical approach comes from the Rev. Professor Andrew Linzey who claims Biblical texts support his thesis that all animals are sentient beings, and therefore should not be killed, eaten or abused.

This ethical view is challenged by www.goldenageproject.org.uk/genesis.php research demonstrating that a correct translation of the Genesis text requires mankind to take benevolent control of the good management of species and the planet.    

The one consistency is that these organisations tend to raise large sums of money, act in concert, and milk the emotions of a trusting public on specific targets, where they use untruthful and misleading promotional material.  Once campaigns are underway more extreme measures and propaganda are used to justify their existence to those who fund them.

In the absence of ethical or moral evidence based on established customs, we find that scientific research and common sense considerations are buried by hypocrisy, dogma, and political expediency.  Politicians who are expected to exercise a duty of care and search for the truth though the provision of evidence and informed debate, have resorted to absolving their duty of care responsibilities in order to pander to public opinion.  Opinion, which after long targeted misinformation campaigns by those with the largest resources, naturally tend to be slanted towards that misinformation.

This extraordinary situation has arisen through an endemic of bearing of false witness accompanied by raising funds or favours from such activities.  This in simple language is a deceitful and fraudulent activity, which unfortunately is not being policed under current information overload conditions.

The major conclusion reached at the Defra organised conference on 30th July 2008 titled Working in Partnership to Deliver an Effective Animal Welfare Strategy was that animal welfare issues should be resolved by evidence, and that a duty of care existed as a fundamental feature of the Animal Welfare Act, wherever unnecessary suffering could be prevented.  This statement was clarified by Bill Swan (lead RSPCA advisor) in his presentation, when he stated that the prevalence of poor welfare can be assessed by the observation of behaviour, and calculations of the duration and severity of that poor welfare, which is exactly what is produced by the British Wildlife Management Welfare Equation.

Go to top