Kalle reflects on ethics and animals

How does the FSSD relate to animal ethics? This is a question that facilitators and supervisors of ABCD-in-Funnel workshops often get. So, it may be worthwhile to reflect a bit on the answer. The first line of response is that the FSSD with its Operative system ABCD-in-Funnel is not a general rule of thumb for how to live our lives. Instead, our values, belief systems and philosophies belong to the personal contents of our future goals and visions within the generic boundary conditions. Having said that, it may still be a nice exercise to see how far the boundary conditions for sustainability may serve as something to primarily hold on to, also when the question of animal ethics is to be discussed. So that we at least don’t forget the basics of an answer, would the question arise.

More in detail:

The operating system ‘ABCD in the Funnel’, with its eight boundary conditions, is generic/unifying for sustainable (re)design (of organizations, regions, countries, products or any other topic). It serves us structurally to ask the right questions about all aspects that need to be covered for a given mission in the system to be sustainable – that is, possible to envision in the future (which sustainble means).

So, for starters, the 8 boundary conditions are not there to replace any of all the wise philosophical aspects that are expressed by the Golden Rule in religious systems, or anything wise said by for example Singer about animal-ethics. On the contrary, well thought-through philosophies may be helpful when we seek relevant aspects to put as valued and inspirational contents within the basic structure of an ABCD-in-Funnel informed (re)design mission. Having said this, let us just go through the boundary conditions to see if they may hint at some aspects of ABCD-in-Funnel conversations that are relevant also for animal ethics.

In this case, just think of the first three boundary conditions of ‘ABCD-in-Funnel’ planning under “A”. In a sustainable future at A, extinction of species has ceased because societal and organizational designs no longer violate boundary conditions 1-3. An irrefutable basic requirement for our own survival, covering also some ethical dimensions for nature at large, including animals, for pure ecological reasons.

But, during the social processes on the way there, the operative system tells us to manage people such that also the social boundary conditions for sustainability are more likely to be followed. It means letting people co-create future goals (A) as well as paths to these goals (B, C and D) under a leadership that puts no structural obstacles in the way of (4) health, (5) influence, (6) competence, (7) impartiality and (8) meaning making (the five social boundary conditions).

The rhetoric question that now arises is: wouldn’t it be possible to imagine a design of a sustainable social system, within the 5 social boundary conditions, that would be cruel to animals? For example, by allowing painful animal experiments? (Which could theoretically take place without violating any on the three ecological boundary conditions?)

This rhetoric question is for example relevant if we are to run ABCD workshops in the cosmetic’s industry. What would a group of people in this industry say, while reflecting on their own mental well-being, if developments happened without care about how animals feel (4)? (We cannot possibly ask animals this question). What would people of this sector say about our willingness to let the voices of animals speak through us to exert influence on our design-decisions made (5)? How would this influence our learning processes (6) to bring valuable sentiments on animal ethics to action? What about meaningful relationships between people on this point (8), i.e. the narratives on “missions” we hold for important or essential?

And – not least important – what would this community of people say if they were to reflect on our responsibilities to be spokesmen/advocates for all those who have feelings but no voices (7)? Which does not apply only to animals but also, for example, future generations of people. Violating this principle is sometimes referred to as generation-egoism. This issue also applies to some present-day people like toddlers, or people with mental disorders or other reasons for not having their say (7).

It has been shown, that if groups of people are tested and shown to under-perform socially/ethically, e.g. in prisoner-dilemma games about social trust, the outcome of such tests can be greatly improved by education before the testing (6). It is us humans who can be informed advocates for other species and people not yet born. After all, those categories of life cannot have any other voice in sustainable planning than us. It therefor appears to be a natural aspect of learning on the FSSD Global platform.

The picture is AI-generated