Skip to main content

Animal Welfare and Animal Rights: an Examination of some Ethical Problems

Journal of Academic Ethics volume 15, pages 377–395 (2017)Cite this article

Abstract

The spectacle of the relentless use and abuse of animals in various human enterprises led some human beings to formulate animal welfare policies and to offer philosophical arguments on the basis of which the humane treatment of animals could be defended rationally. According to the animal welfare concept, animals should be provided some comfort and freedom of movement in the period prior to the moment when they are killed. This concept emphasizes the physiological, psychological, and natural aspects of animal life with the focus on freedom. Ironically, however it is not concerned with the rights of animals; nor is it interested in their remaining alive. So, animals are least benefitted by such provisions, which is the major concern for those who defend animal rights. It seems dubious to demand comfort for a being in life, but not security for its actual life, since rights and freedom are essential for the maintenance of a normal life. This paper aims to (a) critically analyze the animal welfare system, which prioritizes only freedom; (b) to demonstrate how animal welfare is incomplete without animal rights and how they are closely related to each other; and (c) to bridge the gap between animal welfare and animal rights. The underlying principle of animal welfare concept is restricted by its anthropocentric framework with the result that the ethical element is missing. Mere ‘freedom’ is not sufficient for constituting an ideal animal welfare domain. In order to achieve real animal well-being, it is necessary to consider both the rights as well as the welfare of animals.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Notes

  1. Though animal gestation, sow stalls, or battery crates are banned in certain developed countries like the United Kingdom, the countries under European Union, New Zealand but in countries such as China, India (though they implement higher welfare standards), etc. these stalls continue to exist.

  2. Human beings are rational, self-conscious autonomous beings. They are well aware of what is happening (good and bad) to them. They have intellectual capacity, ability to make judgments (ethical), and aesthetic sense which features distinguish them from other beings or things. However, even though they are endowed with these sophisticated qualities, still they are not entitled to exploit animals.

  3. Animal welfare as a formal discipline began with the Brambell Report issued by the British Government. Report of the Technical Committee to enquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive livestock husbandry systems, 1965, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, UK.

  4. Although Tom Regan has jettisoned Peter Singer’s point, however, they both not only demand an ideal animal welfare policy, but also they both strongly support animal rights.

  5. Though there are other factors, such as anatomical and physiological similarities and evolutionary kinship, which entice humans to consider animals morally, however, the mental aspect is the vital one because the debate of animal ethics raised grounding on their suffering (mostly mental suffering). All sorts of cruelty against animals not only cause physical injuries, but also severe mental trauma, which can be easily observed from their behavior. Their physical wounds lead to their mental suffering. As long as humans are reluctant to recognize their pain and agony, it is not fair to say animals are considered morally only because there are anatomical and physiological similarities between humans and animals and that they are evolutionary kin of humans.

  6. While a large number of animal welfare policies have been made in various countries, in this paper I have discussed only a few of the initial ones.

  7. Farm Animal Welfare in Great Britain: Past, present and Future, Farm Animal Welfare Council, Noble House, London, October 2009, p. iii.

  8. Animal rights consist of many things such as right to life, right not to be subjected to suffering, and right to freedom (since animals want freedom impulsively) which cover all necessities such as staying alive, food, water, security from physical as well as mental injuries etc.. A distinction has been made between animal welfare and rights in academia (in both theory and practice), which treats ‘right’ and ‘freedom’ as two different concepts. I discuss ‘rights’ and ‘freedom’ as two distinct concepts because I intend to show that animal welfare presupposes animal rights.

  9. Although Rousseau, Bentham and Singer and Cochrane have already tried to establish the moral status of animals through this means an attempt is made to prove the existence of animal rights on a different line.

  10. Humans depend on many living beings and non-living elements to sustain their lives such as trees and plants, water, other animals, and mineral resources.

  11. There are such cases where humans’ dependence on companion animals (some people emotionally dependent on their pet) is on a par with humans’ dependence on other humans.

  12. ‘A tree has life’ means that a tree is a living organism like humans and animals though it is different in many ways from both. It has also evolved along with the evolution of life on earth. Perhaps, this is the reason why Darwin’s evolutionary notion states that all lives are related and descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the banana, the fishes and the flowers. A tree needs water and food (fertilizer) to grow. It naturally produces oxygen, fruits, and flowers and possesses the capacity to reproduce. This is the reason why, perhaps, philosophers haven’t neglected to attribute intrinsic value to it. For instance, Arne Naess says, trees and ‘plant species should be saved because of their intrinsic value’ (Naess 1984).

  13. I use the term in order to express the idea that the constitutive features of trees are natural; similarly, the interests of trees are self-generated, whereas in the case of a car they are not.

  14. Rights of humans are different from animal rights, except some fundamental rights i.e., right to life and right to food,. Similarly, the concept of animals’ freedom needs to be understood in a different way.

  15. In certain circumstances rights of animals are emphasized over freedom because the freedom for animals will hardly mean anything without their right to life.

References

  • Baxter, M. R. (1983). Ethology in environmental design for animal production. Applied Animal Ethology, 9, 207–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekoff, M. (Ed.). (2010). Encyclopedia of animal rights and animal welfare (2nd ed.). Santa Barbara: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentham, J. (1789). The principles of morals and legislation. New York: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brambell Report. (1965). Report of the technical committee to enquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive livestock husbandry systems. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broom, D. M. (1991). Animal welfare: concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science, 69, 4167–4175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane, A. (2012). Animal rights without liberation: applied ethics and human obligations. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, M. S. (1988). Behavioural deprivation: a central problem in animal welfare. Applied Animal Behavioural Science, 20, 209–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Descartes, R. (1985). Discourse on method, vol. 1, part 5, In J. Cottingham (ed.), The philosophical writings, London: Cambridge University Press.

  • Desire, L., Boissy, A., & Veissier, I. (2002). Emotions in farm animals: a new approach to animal welfare in applied ethology. Behavioural Processes, 60, 165–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, I. J. H. (1993). Welfare is to do with what animals feel. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 6(2), 8–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, I. J. H., & Dawkins, M. S. (1983). The problem of assessing “well-being” and “suffering” in farm animals. In D. Smidt (Ed.), Indicators relevant to farm animal welfare (pp. 13–24). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ewbank, R. (1988). Animal welfare. In Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (Ed.), Management and welfare of farm animals (pp. 1–12). London: Baillier Tindall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farm Animal Welfare Council. (2009). Farm animal welfare in great Britain: past, present and future (October ed.p. iii). London: Noble House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg, J. (1974). The rights of animals and unborn generations. In W. T. Blackstone (Ed.), Philosophy and environmental crisis. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francione, G. L., & Garner, R. (2010). The animal rights debate: abolition or regulation? New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, B. (1950). Autobiography. New York: Random House, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, D., Weary, D. M., Pajor, E. A., & Milligan, B. N. (1997). A scientific concept of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare, 6, 187–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grandin, T. (1993). Livestock Handling and Transport. UK: CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, D. R. (1992). Animal Minds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, M. (2014). Extinct in the wild: Père David deer. The whisker chronicles, available at: http://thewhiskerchronicles.com/2014/06/22/extinct-in-the-wild-pere-davids-deer/. Accessed 3 Jan 2016.

  • Igelsrud, D. (1987). Animal rights and welfare. The American Biology Teacher, 49(4), 252–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, J. S. (1992). The new anthropomorphism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kiley-Worthington, M. (1989). Ecological, ethological, and ethically sound environments for animals: toward symbiosis. Journal of Agricultural Ethics, 2, 323–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lund, V. G., Gunnarsson, S., Appleby, M. C., & Karkinen, K. (2006). Animal welfare science working at the Interface between the natural and social Sciences. Applied Animal Behavioral Science, 97, 37–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, B. E. (1984). Bioethical problem: animal welfare and animal rights. Bioscience, 34(10), 615–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGlone, J. J. (1993). What is animal welfare? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 6(2), 26–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Midgley, M. (1983). Animals and why they matter. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millman, S. T., Duncan, I. J. H., Stauffacher, M., & Stookey, J. M. (2004). The impact of applied ethologists and the International Society for Applied Ethology in improving animal welfare. Applied Animal Behavioral Science, 86, 299–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, A. R. (2009). An odyssey with animals: a Veterinarian’s reflections on the animal rights & welfare debate. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Naess, A. (1984). Identification as a source of deep ecological attitudes. In M. Tobias (Ed.), Deep ecology (p. 257). San Diego: Avant Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, E. O. (1984). Behavioral aspects of animal domestication. Quarterly Review Biology, 59, 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raz, J. (1988). The morality of freedom. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan, T. (2001). The radical egalitarian case for animal rights. In L. P. Pojman (Ed.), Environmental ethic, reading theory and application (p. 42). Belmont: Wadsworth Thomson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resource document. (2016) Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, available at: http://nationalzoo.si.edu/scbi/endangeredspecies/capbreedpops/default.cfm. Accessed 3 Jan 2016.

  • Ringach, D. L. (2011). The use of animals in biomedical research. The American Journal of Medical Sciences, 342(4), 305–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rollin, B. E. (1990). The unheeded cry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rollin, B. E. (1992). Animal mind and human morality. Buffalo: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, J.-J. (1957). Emile (p. 153). Paris: Garnier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sainsbury, D. (1986). Farm animal welfare: cattle, pigs and poultry. London: Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silberman, M. S. (1988). Animal welfare, animal rights: the past, present, and the 21st century. The Journal of Zoo Animal Medicine (P. 164), 19(4), 161–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. (1990). Animal liberation. New York: Avon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. (2004). Not for humans only: the place of nonhumans in environmental issues. In L. Andrew & H. Rolston III (Eds.), Environmental ethics (p. 57). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P. W. (1984). Are humans superior to animals and plants? Environmental Ethics, 6, 149–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P. W. (1986). Respect for nature: a theory of environmental ethics (p. 100). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terlouw, E. M. C., Lawrence, A. B., Ladewig, J., de Passille, A. M. B., Rushen, J., & Schouten, W. (1991). A relationship between stereotypes and cortisol in sows. Behavioural Processes, 25, 133–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanDeveer, D. (2003). Inter specific justice. In D. VanDeveer & C. Pierce (Eds.), The environmental ethics and policy book (p. 157). Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • WWF Policy Statement. (2007) available at: http://wwf.panda.org/?103860/Captive-Breeding-WWF-Policy-Statement-2007. Accessed 31 Dec 2015.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Independent Researcher based at Bangalore, Bangalore, India

    Nibedita Priyadarshini Jena

Authors
  1. Nibedita Priyadarshini Jena
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nibedita Priyadarshini Jena.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jena, N.P. Animal Welfare and Animal Rights: an Examination of some Ethical Problems. J Acad Ethics 15, 377–395 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-017-9282-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-017-9282-1

Keywords

  • Animals
  • Rights
  • Freedom
  • Welfare
  • Killing
  • Suffering
  • Cruelty
  • Dependency