IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/env/journl/ev18ev1815.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

World Poverty, Animal Minds and the Ethics of Veterinary Expenditure

Author

Listed:
  • John Hadley
  • Siobhan O'Sullivan

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • John Hadley & Siobhan O'Sullivan, 2009. "World Poverty, Animal Minds and the Ethics of Veterinary Expenditure," Environmental Values, White Horse Press, vol. 18(3), pages 361-378, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:env:journl:ev18:ev1815
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/whp/ev/2009/00000018/00000003/art00007
    Download Restriction: downloads of articles require payment or registration of paid subscription

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Erik Ansink & Lars Hein & Knut Per Hasund, 2008. "To Value Functions or Services? An Analysis of Ecosystem Valuation Approaches," Environmental Values, White Horse Press, vol. 17(4), pages 489-503, November.
    2. Paavola, Jouni, 2007. "Institutions and environmental governance: A reconceptualization," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 93-103, June.
    3. Nelson, Anitra, 2001. "The poverty of money:: Marxian insights for ecological economists," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 499-511, March.
    4. Becker, Joachim & Raza, Werner G., 2000. "Theory of regulation and political ecology. An inevitable separation?," SRE-Discussion Papers 1312, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    5. Ropke, Inge, 2005. "Trends in the development of ecological economics from the late 1980s to the early 2000s," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 262-290, November.
    6. Martinez-Alier, Joan & Munda, Giuseppe & O'Neill, John, 1998. "Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 277-286, September.
    7. Gowdy, John M. & Mayumi, Kozo, 2001. "Reformulating the foundations of consumer choice theory and environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 223-237, November.
    8. Arild Vatn, 2004. "Environmental Valuation and Rationality," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(1), pages 1-18.
    9. David Throsby, 2003. "Determining the Value of Cultural Goods: How Much (or How Little) Does Contingent Valuation Tell Us?," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 27(3), pages 275-285, November.
    10. Vatn, Arild, 2005. "Rationality, institutions and environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 203-217, November.
    11. Sjaastad, Espen & Angelsen, Arild & Vedeld, Pål & Bojö, Jan, 2005. "What is environmental income?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 37-46, October.
    12. Brennan, Andrew John, 2008. "Theoretical foundations of sustainable economic welfare indicators -- ISEW and political economy of the disembedded system," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 1-19, August.
    13. Henrik Svedsäter, 2003. "Economic Valuation of the Environment: How Citizens Make Sense of Contingent Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(1), pages 122-135.
    14. Turner, R. Kerry & Paavola, Jouni & Cooper, Philip & Farber, Stephen & Jessamy, Valma & Georgiou, Stavros, 2003. "Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 493-510, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Pet keeping; giving to charity; utilitarianism; Singer; Shallow Pond;

    JEL classification:

    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • I31 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General Welfare, Well-Being

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:env:journl:ev18:ev1815. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Andrew Johnson). General contact details of provider: http://www.whp-journals.co.uk .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.