WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ARGUMENT AGAINST HUMAN USE OF ANIMALS?

I do not find that there is an argument against any use of animals. To the extent that humans can benefit from animals and no damage is done to the animals, I do not see a problem. If all use of animals was stopped, we would prevent many animals from living a good life in our care. Production animals, for instance, kept in extensive production systems would not be there. Their livelihood would disappear.

WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ARGUMENT FOR THE HUMAN USE OF ANIMALS?

The general argument for human use of animals is that it may provide us benefits that we would not otherwise get. There are many examples of that, but obviously we need to make sure that the animals live good lives. It does not necessarily detract from a good animal life that the animal at the same time provides benefits to humans.

ANIMALS ARE SENTIENT BEINGS. WHY DOES THAT NOT GIVE THEM THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN LIFE?

Domestic animals are our responsibility, but I believe they may still have their own life. So there need not be a contradiction here. We have a cat at home and it certainly lives its own life, even if it is our cat. If, on the other hand, we are talking about killing of animal for food or fur, then, of course in a way we do not give the animals the right to their own life. But many wild animals live tough and short lives, and we may not achieve a higher level of animal welfare or longer animal lives on average, if there were only wild animals. It is very hard to claim that in general wild animals are better off than domestic animals. Wild animals have very high death rates, they quickly become worn out, and the mortality of their offspring is mostly extremely high. So the comparison between domestic and wild animals may not in general turn to out to the benefit of wild animals. And therefore the alleged right of animals to their own life may not, from the point of view of the animals, be worth fighting for.

IN RELATION TO HUMAN CONSUMPTION OF ANIMALS, WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAN AND ANIMALS?

The most important difference is that humans are self-consciousness beings. We are able to set goals for ourselves and we live in complex societies where respect for certain basic rights is vital. Animals do not live in societies, they do not make plans for their lives, and they do not seem to be conscious of the fact that they can die.

FUR IS A LUXURY PRODUCT AND THE USE OF FUR IS CONSIDERED UNNECCESARY BY MANY PEOPLE. WHAT IS YOUR VIEW ON THIS ARGUMENT?

The luxury argument is very problematic if it is used in a context where it is allowed to keep animals for the production of food, but not for fur. If luxury means something we can live without, I find it very hard to follow the argument, since we can also live without meat and other animal based food products. A variety of the luxury argument is that fur is luxury because only the fur from the animals is used . This, I find a weak argument. In our part of the world, fur animals are fed with bi-products from other forms of livestock productions and carcasses are used for bio-fuel. It is by comparison quite a sustainable production.

IN YOUR OPINION, WHY DOES FUR HAVE A SOMEWHAT BAD REPUTATION?

For several reasons. Fur opponents have succeeded in presenting fur animals as wild animals, contrary to the domesticated animals used for food production. A wild animal in a cage is perceived as something offensive. They have also succeeded in presenting the animal welfare in the fur production as being very poor, and at the same time fur is perceived as a luxury product worn by greedy people.

IN YOUR OPINION, WHAT SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN DEVELOPING ANIMAL LAWS?

My basic opinion is that legislation about animals must ensure that the production and use of animals is carried out in a sound way. The behavioral and physiological needs of the animals must be fulfilled. However, there are still many severe welfare problems in animal production. Even among countries with the best intention, international price competition often gets in the way of sufficiently good animal welfare legislation. Another way of trying to handle the issue is via so-called market driven animal welfare. However, this will cover only the best part of the production.

HOW DO YOU SEE POLITICAL REGULATION ON ANIMAL ISSUES DEVELOP IN EUROPE IN THE FUTURE?

Because of fear from competition from countries with less stringent regulation, politicians may be reluctant to make progress here. We are getting more like the US, where animal welfare is left to the market. To my mind this is a very unfortunate development.

Peter Sandoe was educated at the University of Copenhagen (MA in philosophy 1984) and at the University of Oxford (D.Phil. in philosophy 1988). From 1994 to 1997 he was Associate Professor of philosophy at the University of Copenhagen. From 1997 to 2002 he was Research Professor, and from 2002 he is Professor in Bioethics at the Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen. Since 2005 he has headed the Unit of Consumption, Health and Ethics, the Institute of Food and Resource Economics. He is the director of the Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment (CeBRA), an inter-disciplinary and inter-institutional research centre founded in January 2000. Since 2007 he has been member of the Committee of good Scientific Practice at the University of Copenhagen. 

In the period 1992-2012 he served as Chairman of the Danish Ethical Council for Animals, an advisory board set up by the Danish Minister of Justice. From 2000 till 2007 he was president of The European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics. From 2009 he is Honorary Professor of Animal Ethics at the University of Nottingham. Since 1990 the major part of his research has been within bioethics with particular emphasis on ethical issues related to animals, biotechnology and food production. He is committed to interdisciplinary work combining perspectives from natural science, social sciences and philosophy.