I want to briefly talk about the ethics of working with horses, and the responsibilities that arise from them.

From time to time I am asked, that given my views on horses and training, why do I ride horses at all? Apparently, if I really cared about a horse’s welfare and their comfort, I should just let them roam freely and never ride or train them.

The first time I was asked this, my immediate reaction was that it was a silly question. But years later, I can see that it is a question all horse people should ask themselves, so they are clear in their own minds regarding the type of relationship they are working towards with a horse.

Surprisingly, there is still some argument in the horse world about whether horses have emotions at all. I think this dates back to the 13th century when philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas proclaimed animals were not worthy of consideration because it was assumed they could not reason like humans. This makes sense for those times because most philosophers were also theologians and their belief system put humans as God’s children and animals were a gift from God for the benefit of humans.

Thankfully, only a handful of people still hold those views.

However, there is still a considerable stigma in assigning human-like qualities (like emotions) to animals. These days, many people believe that anthropomorphizing (describing animal traits as being similar to human traits) animals is wrong.

Personally, I believe anthropomorphism is a positive thing on the whole and is completely justified. The problem comes from people taking anthropomorphism too far. For example, horses have a neural network capable of experiencing emotions, so it is perfectly reasonable to suggest they can experience suffering. Even so, horses don’t have the brain mechanisms to plot and scheme, so it is not reasonable to assume that horses can try to trick us or plot against us. Yet, people want to make the issue of anthropomorphism black and white, i.e. either horses share human-like qualities or they don’t. The reality is that they share some, but not all.

Anybody who has spent time with horses will know that they can exhibit fear, joy, nervousness, relaxation, curiosity, and many other emotions. They can make decisions between two or more choices, which I consider a form of reasoning or problem-solving. So it is not unreasonable to assign human-like qualities to a horse if it helps people have a better understanding of how they operate.

Scientists are only catching up to what horse people have known for centuries with regard to the emotional nature of horses and all species with a complex central nervous system. It’s been shown that there are common centres of the brain across all vertebrates that relate to the emotional capacity of an animal. In particular, the amygdala is similar in humans, horses, birds, fish, and amphibians. Studies have shown that if the thinking part of the brain is destroyed, but the amygdala is left intact, rats still show emotionally driven behaviour. I don’t think it is too much of a stretch to consider that horses would exhibit similar responses.

To me, this makes perfect sense when you consider that evolution works by small modifications to create a new species. Most species of vertebrates have more DNA in common than they do different. So it is a much more rational argument to consider that humans differ from horses as a matter of degree, rather than as two species radically and completely different.

The bottom line is that all species with a complex brain (including horses) have an emotional nature that is hardwired into them. As we know, horses are not automatons, but animals with strong emotional needs that largely determine how they behave in the world. If we deny the emotional nature of a horse as the primary motivator for behaviour and response to training, then we deny the true nature of the animal. Emotions drive everything.

When I have talked about the link between a horse’s emotions and thoughts in the past, I have been asked, “How can you know what a horse is thinking and feeling?”

The inference is that I can’t possibly know what a horse is thinking and feeling because horses don’t sit down with us over a cup of tea and tell us their problems. However, they do tell us. They are always telling us. In fact, they hardly ever shut up! People make the mistake of confusing their inability to listen to a horse, with the horse’s inability to talk to them. It is the arrogance of human nature for us to believe that because we don’t understand something, it does not exist.

The 18th century German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer believed that suffering should determine the ethics of all our decisions in life, and in this regard, we should empathize with the suffering of animals.

If you agree with Schopenhauer, then the ethics of horse training is an easy choice. The emotional well-being of the horse should be the most important determinant in the methods of training we choose. Other factors, such as obedience and competitive success, should play minor roles in the choice of training approaches we adopt.

Having given you all the pre-amble about ethics, how do I justify training horses instead of letting them roam untouched in my paddocks?

In my mind, the justification lies in the choices I make. I choose not to do things with horses that I believe are not to their benefit. For example, I keep my horses in as natural an environment as possible. I choose methods and equipment that I have a thorough understanding of how and why to use. I work towards a better relationship in everything I do with a horse and strive to never stop being the student.

It’s not for me to preach to others about the ethics of training horses. Each person has his or her own ethics and values. Nevertheless, I urge everybody to have at the forefront of their minds when working with a horse that everything they do should be judged foremost in terms of the emotional wellbeing of each and every horse.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated” – Mahatma Gandhi.