Genetic engineering is a social invention as much
as a biological one. Ordinary citizens interested in the
well-being of life on the planet should therefore be involved
in the ethical debates concerning the future of nonhuman
animals. The creations of genetic engineers ought to be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis by what the American
philosopher R. G. Frey calls “a jury of concerned
individuals.” Frey is an advocate for putting animals in
perspective, which means that animals matter, but not as much
as humans. He therefore supports the prevailing moral orthodoxy,
which currently in the West means that animals can be eaten,
dissected, hunted, and exhibited, provided that these things
are done humanely and that the benefits to humans outweigh
the harms to the animals. The “concerned individual,”
he suggests, would have no objection to humans killing
animals as long as the animals do not suffer. In the present
paper, my aim is to raise some of the ethical, welfare,
and social issues from an animal-protectionist perspective
which ordinary citizens would need to consider if they
were ever asked to vote on the benefits or otherwise of
the impact of genetic engineering on animal welfare.
