With growing understanding of animals' capabilities, and public and organizational pressures to improve animal welfare, moral action by veterinarians and other relevant professionals to address animal issues is increasingly important. Little is known about how their action choices relate to their moral reasoning on animal ethics issues. A moral judgment measure, the VetDIT, with three animal and three non-animal scenarios, was used to investigate the action choices of 619 students in five animal- and two non-animal-related professional programs in one Australian university, and how these related to their moral reasoning based on Personal Interest (PI), Maintaining Norms (MN), or Universal Principles (UP) schemas. Action choices showed significant relationships to PI, MN, and UP questions, and these varied across program groups. Having a previous degree or more experience with farm animals had a negative relationship, and experience with horses or companion animals a positive relationship, with intuitive action choices favoring life and bodily integrity of animals. This study helps to explain the complex relationship between intuitive moral action choices and moral reasoning on animal ethics issues. As a useful research and educational tool for understanding this relationship, the VetDIT can enhance ethical decision making.
Keywords: animal ethics; animal welfare; intuitive action choices; moral action; moral judgment.