Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T01:42:03.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Philosophical Debate on the Nature of Well-Being: Implications for Animal Welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

M C Appleby  and
P Sandøe
M C Appleby*
Affiliation:
Humane Society of the United States, 2100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20037, USA
P Sandøe
Affiliation:
Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [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.

There has been much consideration of well-being in philosophy, especially of human well-being, which contributes to our understanding of animal welfare. Three common approaches to well-being are presented here, which map approximately onto three possible ideas about animal welfare. Perfectionism and other forms of ‘objective list’ theories suggest that there are various values that should be realised or various things that an individual ought to have for his life to be a good life. In the case of humans, this is based on the concept of human nature. This approach is reflected in two ideas about animal welfare: first, that animals should live natural lives (which includes consideration of an animal's nature or ‘telos’), and second, that welfare is concerned with functioning or fitness of animals. The two other approaches are subjective: in other words, they relate solely to the mental processes of the subject. The first, desire fulfilment, suggests that well-being is defined by the satisfaction of desires or preferences. The other, hedonism, states that well-being is the presence of pleasant mental states and the absence of unpleasant ones. These two approaches are both relevant to the idea that the welfare of animals relates solely to their feelings. That idea corresponds most closely to hedonism, so it may be that preferences are most relevant in helping to reveal feelings. However, it is sometimes implied that satisfaction of preferences is itself part of feelings. It would also be possible to maintain, as in the desire fulfilment approach to human well-being, that animal welfare consists of preference satisfaction itself. These possibilities need to be more clearly distinguished. Arguments for and against each approach to well-being are presented, so that scientists may be more aware of the strengths and weaknesses of their own ideas about animal welfare.

Keywords

animal welfarefeelingsfunctioninghedonismphilosophypreferences
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , August 2002 , pp. 283 - 294
Copyright
© 2002 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Aristotle 1934 The Nicomachean Ethics. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts, USAGoogle Scholar
Barnard, C J and Hurst, J L 1996 Welfare by design: the natural selection of welfare criteria. Animal Welfare 5: 405–433Google Scholar
Bentham, J 1789 Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. 1996 Imprint. Clarendon: Oxford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bermond, B 1997 The myth of animal suffering. In: Dol, M, Kasanmoentalib, S, Lijmbach, S, Rivas, E and van den Bos, R (eds) Animal Consciousness and Animal Ethics pp 125–143. Van Gorcum: Assen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Brandt, R B 1979 A Theory of the Good and the Right. Clarendon: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Broom, D M 1991 Animal welfare: concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science 69: 4167–4175CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broom, D M 1996 Animal welfare defined in terms of attempts to cope with the environment. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica (Section A: Animal Science) 27: 22–28 (Suppl)Google Scholar
Broom, D M 1998 The evolution of feelings and their relation to welfare. In: Veissier, I and Boissy, A (eds) Proceedings of the 32nd Congress of the International Society for Applied Ethology pp 42–43. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique: Clermont-Ferrand, FranceGoogle Scholar
Carruthers, P 1992 The Animals Issue: Moral Theory in Practice. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeGrazia, D 1996 Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Life and Moral Status. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I J H 1996 Animal welfare defined in terms of feelings. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica (Section A: Animal Science) 27: 29–35 (Suppl)Google Scholar
Duncan, I J H and Fraser, D 1997 Understanding animal welfare. In: Appleby, M C and Hughes, B O (eds) Animal Welfare pp 19–31. CAB International: Wallingford, Oxon, UKGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D and Matthews, L R 1997 Preference and motivation testing. In: Appleby M C and Hughes B 0 (eds) Animal Welfare pp 159–173. CAB International: Wallingford, Oxon, UKGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D, Weary, D M, Pajor, E A and Milligan, B N 1997 A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects public values. Animal Welfare 6: 187–205Google Scholar
Frey, R G 1980 Interests and Rights: The Case Against Animals. Clarendon: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Griffin, J 1986 Well-being: Its Meaning, Measurement and Moral Importance. Clarendon: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Hare, R M 1981 Moral Thinking. Clarendon: Oxford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurka, T 1993 Perfectionism. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Jensen, K K and Sandøe, P 1997 Animal welfare: relative or absolute? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 54: 33–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagan, S 1992 The limits of well-being. In: Paul, E F, Miller, F D and Paul, J (eds) The Good Life and the Human Good pp 169–189. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Kyriazakis, I, Emmaus, G and Whittemore, C T 1990 Diet selection in pigs: choices made by growing pigs given foods of different protein concentrations. Animal Production 51: 189–199Google Scholar
Leahy, MPT 1991 Against Liberation: Putting Animals in Perspective. Routledge: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Midgley, M 1983 Animals and Why They Matter. University of Georgia Press: Athens, USAGoogle Scholar
Nordenfelt, L 1994 Towards a theory of happiness: a subjectivist notion of quality of life. In: Nordenfelt, L (ed) Concepts and Measurement of Quality of Life in Health Care pp 35–57. Kluwer: Dordrecht, GermanyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parfit, D 1984 Reasons and Persons. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Rachels, J 1990 Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Regan, T 1983 The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press: Berkeley, USAGoogle Scholar
Rodd, R 1990 Biology, Ethics and Animals. Clarendon: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Rollin, BE 1981 Animal Rights and Human Morality. Prometheus: Buffalo, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Rollin, B E 1993a Animal welfare, science and value. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6: 44–50 (Suppl 2)Google Scholar
Rollin, B E 1993b Animal production and the new social ethic for animals. In: Purdue Research Foundation (ed) Food Animal Well-being 1993: Conference Proceedings and Deliberations pp 3–13. US Department of Agriculture and Purdue University Office of Agricultural Research Programs: West Lafayette, USAGoogle Scholar
Sandøe, P 1999 Quality of life: three competing views. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 2: 11–23CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sapontzis, S F 1987 Morals, Reason and Animals. Temple University Press: Philadelphia, USAGoogle Scholar
Scanlon, T 1993 Value, desire and quality of life. In: Nussbaum, M and Sen, A (eds) The Quality of Life pp 185–200. Clarendon: Oxford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A 1987 On Ethics and Economics. Blackwells: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Singer, P 1975 Animal Liberation. New York Review of Books: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Sumner, L W 1992 Two theories of the good. In: Paul, E F, Miller, F D and Paul, J (eds) The Good Life and the Human Good pp 169–189. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Trigg, R 1970 Pain and Emotion. Clarendon: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar