Ascribing Sentience: Evidential and Ethical Considerations in Policymaking

Simple Summary Policies that affect animals need to consider which animals can experience suffering and other positive or negative feelings. Policymakers, therefore, need to determine which animals should be treated as sentient. This requires answering several questions about the definition, criteria, evidence requirements and sources, and how far the conclusions should be generalized. These should use scientific evidence where available, but the process is also full of ethical aspects that should conform to ethical principles applicable to policymakers, such as selflessness, objectivity, accountability and openness. Deciding which animals are sentient is an important precursor for decisions about the application of animal welfare legislation, and the wider assessment of the impacts of policies on animal suffering. We ascribe sentience in order to inform decisions about how animals should be treated, and how their treatment should be regulated. This ascription is both an ethical and an evidential process, and what evidence to use and require are ethical questions. Policymakers, therefore, cannot simply rely on scientific evidence in an ethically neutral way, but must be conscious of the ethical assumptions and positions underlying the process of ascription and its application in policy and law. As such, ethical principles that apply to policymaking apply to the ascription of sentience. This paper considers the implications of the Nolan principles for public service on the ascription of animals.

Automated summary

Policies regarding animals need to take into account their capacity for sentience and should be guided by ethical principles in determining how they should be treated and regulated.