Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:10:15.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cultural variation, animal welfare and telos

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

BE Rollin
BE Rollin*
Affiliation:
Colorado State University, Philosophy Department, 243 Eddy Building, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA
*
Correspondence: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The effect of varied cultural traditions on concepts of animal welfare appears to be a novel issue, growing out of recent societal concerns with globalisation, multi-culturalism, and diversity. In more imperialistic times, Western culture cared little about such issues. Upon reflection, however, it is apparent that this is not a new issue, as even within our culture the concept of welfare has been variously defined, based on differences in values in general and ethics in particular, varying enormously with different views of the moral status of animals. A most dramatic example of this can be found in production agriculture's view that (to paraphrase) ‘the animal is experiencing good welfare when it fulfils the human (production) purpose for which it is kept’, as expressed in the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) report of 1981. Clearly, an animal welfare advocate opposed to confinement agriculture would have expressed a very different view. If the concept of animal welfare is both intra- and cross-culturally varied, how then does one resolve differences? The answer may be found in what I have termed the ‘new social ethic for animals’ that is fairly uniform across Western societies, as I explain in this paper. In essence, the new ethic focusses on satisfying animals' needs dictated by their telos or biological nature. Insofar as Western democratic societies dictate to the rest of the world, which is economically dependent upon them, we will see this animal ethic achieve global hegemony, much as the notion of human rights has become globally ubiquitous as an ideal.

Keywords

animal happinessanimal quality of lifeanimal rightsanimal telosanimal welfarecultural variation
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 16 , Issue S1: Quality of Life: the heart of the matter: Proceedings of the UFAW/BVA Ethics Committee International Symposium, The Royal Society, London, 13-14 September 2006. , May 2007 , pp. 129 - 133
Copyright
© 2007 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Anon 1988 Sweden creates bill of rights for farm animals. New York Times, October 25Google Scholar
Aquinas, T 1956 On the Truth of the Catholic Faith: Summar Contra Gentiles. Doubleday: Providence, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
Ascione, F and Arkow, P (eds) 1999 Child Abuse, Domestic Violence, and Animal Abuse: Linking the Circles of Compassion for Prevention and Intervention. Purdue University Press: West Lafayette, Indiana, USAGoogle Scholar
Brambell, FWR 1965 Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals Kept Under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems. HMSO: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Broom, DM 1988 The scientific assessment of animal welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20: 5–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CAST 1981 Scientific Aspects of the Welfare of Food Animals, Report No 91. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology: Ames, Iowa, USAGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS 1980 Animal Suffering: The Science of Animal Welfare. Chapman and Hall: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, ISH 1981 Animal rights — animal welfare: a scientist's assessment. Poultry Science 60: 489–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, R 1964 Animal Machines. Vincent Stuart: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Kane and Parsons 1989 Parents poll on animal rights, attractiveness, television, and abortion. Parents Magazine. Kane and Parsons Associates: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Kant, I 1997 Lectures on Ethics 27: 458–460 and 27: 710. Heath P and Schneewind JB (eds); translated by Heath P. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Rollin, BE 1981 Animal Rights and Human Morality (1st Edition). Prometheus Books: Buffalo, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
Rollin, BE 1989 The Unheeded Cry: Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain and Science. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Rollin, BE 1995a Farm Animal Welfare: Social, Bioethical and Research Issues. Iowa State University Press: Ames, Iowa, USAGoogle Scholar
Rollin, BE 1995b The Frankenstein Syndrome. Cambridge University Press: New York, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rollin, BE 2004 Animal agriculture and emerging social ethics for animals. Journal of Animal Science 82: 955–964CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rollin, BE 2005 Animal happiness: a philosophical view. In: McMillan, F (ed) Mental Health and Well-Being in Animals pp 235–242. Blackwell: Ames, Iowa, USAGoogle Scholar
Rollin, BE 2006 Science and Ethics. Cambridge University Press: New York, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visscher, MB 1982 Review of Animal Rights and Human Morality. New England Journal of Medicine 306: 1303–1304CrossRefGoogle Scholar