Acta Biotheoretica

, Volume 59, Issue 2, pp 105–120

Competing Conceptions of Animal Welfare and Their Ethical Implications for the Treatment of Non-Human Animals

Regular Article

Abstract

Animal welfare has been conceptualized in such a way that the use of animals in science and for food seems justified. I argue that those who have done this have appropriated the concept of animal welfare, claiming to give a scientific account that is more objective than the “sentimental” account given by animal liberationists. This strategy seems to play a major role in supporting merely limited reform in the use of animals and seems to support the assumption that there are conditions under which animals may be raised and slaughtered for food that are ethically acceptable. Reformists do not need to make this assumption, but they tend to conceptualize animal welfare is such a way that death does not count as harmful to the interests of animals, nor prolonged life a benefit. In addition to this prudential value assumption, some members of this community have developed strategies for defending suitably reformed farming practices as ethical even granting that death and some other forms of constraints are harms. One such strategy is the fiction of a domestic contract. However, if one accepts the conceptualization of human welfare give by L. W. Sumner, and applies it to animals in the way that I think is justified, an accurate conceptualization of animal welfare has different implications for which uses of animals should be regarded as ethically acceptable. In this paper I give an historical and philosophical account of animal welfare conceptulization and use this account to argue that animal breeders, as custodians of the animals they breed, have the ethical responsibility to help their animal wards achieve as much autonomy as possible in choosing the form of life made available to them and to provide that life. Attempts to avoid these implications by alluding to a contract model of the relationship between custodians and their wards fail to relieve custodians of their ethical responsibilities of care.

Keywords

Animal welfare Farm animals Ethics Conceptualization issues 

References

  1. Appleby MC (1999) What should we do about animal welfare?. Blackwell Science, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Appleby MC, Sandøe P (2002) Philosophical debate on the nature of well-being: implications for animal welfare. Anim Welf 11:283–294Google Scholar
  3. Appleby MC, Mench JA, Hughes BO (eds) (2004) Poultry behaviour and welfare. CABI, Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
  4. DeGrazia D (1996) Taking animals seriously: Mental life and moral status. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  5. Duncan IJH (1981) Animal rights—animal welfare: a scientific assessment. Poult Sci 60:489–499Google Scholar
  6. Duncan IJH (2004) A concept of welfare based on feelings. In: Benson GJ, Rollin BE (eds) The well-being of farm animals. Challenges and solutions. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 85–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duncan IJH, Fraser D (1997) Understanding animal welfare. Chap. 2. In: Appleby MC, Hughes BO (eds) Animal welfare. CABI, Wallingford, UK, pp 19–31Google Scholar
  8. Fraser D (1993). Assessing animal well-being: common sense, uncommon science. In: Food animal well-being 1993—conference proceedings and deliberations, April 13–15 1993, Purdue University, Office of Agricultural Programs, Indianapolis, IN. pp 37–74, 59–58Google Scholar
  9. Fraser D, Matthews LR (1997) Preference and motivational testing. In: Appleby MC, Hughes BO (eds) Animal welfare. CABI, Wallingford, UK, pp 159–171Google Scholar
  10. Fraser D, Weary DM (2004) Quality of life for farm animals: Linking science, ethics, and animal welfare. In: Benson GJ, Rollin BE (eds) The well-being of farm animals. Challenges and solutions. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 39–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fraser D, Weary DM, Pajor EA, Milligan BN (1997) A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Anim Welf 6:187–205Google Scholar
  12. Harrison R (1964) Animal machines. Vincent Stuart, Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Haynes RP (2008) Animal welfare. Competing conceptions and their ethical implications. Springer, Berlin, p 2008Google Scholar
  14. Jaspar JM, Nelkin D (1992) The animal rights crusade: the growth of a moral protest. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Kagan S (1992) The limits of well-being. In: Paul EF, Miller FD, Paul J (eds) The good life and the human good. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 169–189Google Scholar
  16. Kheel M (2004) Vegetarianism and ecofeminism: toppling patriarchy with a fork. In: Sapontzis SF (ed) Food for thought. The debate over eating meat. Prometheus Books, Amherst NY, pp 327–343Google Scholar
  17. Mench JA (1998) Thirty years after Brambell: whither animal welfare science? J Appl Anim Welf Sci 1(2):91–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Russell WMS, Burch RL (1959) The principles of humane experimental technique. UFAWGoogle Scholar
  19. Ryder Richard (1998) The political animal. The conquest of speciesism. McFarland and Co, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Sandøe P, Christiansen SB, Appleby MC (2003) Farm animal welfare: the interaction of ethical questions and animal welfare science. Anim Welf 12:469–478Google Scholar
  21. Sapontzis SF (1987) Morals, reason, and animals. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PAGoogle Scholar
  22. Sumner LW (1996) Welfare, happiness, and ethics. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.GainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations