Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T10:20:51.573Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding the multiple conceptions of animal welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

DM Weary  and
JA Robbins
DM Weary
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, 2357 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6T 1Z4, Canada Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
JA Robbins
Affiliation:
Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, 2357 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6T 1Z4, Canada
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.

Academics working on animal welfare typically consider the animal's affective state (eg the experience of pain), biological functioning (eg the presence of injuries), and sometimes naturalness (eg access to pasture), but it is unclear how these different factors are weighed in different cases. We argue that progress can be informed by systematically observing how ordinary people respond to scenarios designed to elicit varying, and potentially conflicting, types of concern. The evidence we review illustrates that people vary in how much weight they place on each of these three factors in their assessments of welfare in different cases; in some cases, concerns about the animal's affective state are predominant, and in other cases other concerns are more important. This evidence also suggests that people's assessments can also include factors (like the animal's relationship with its caregiver) that do not fit neatly within the dominant three-circles framework of affect, functioning and naturalness. We conclude that a more complete understanding of the multiple conceptions of animal welfare can be advanced by systematically exploring the views of non-specialists, including their responses to scenarios designed to elicit conflicting concerns.

Keywords

animal welfareanimal well-beingexperimental philosophygood lifehappinessmoral dilemma
Type
Articles
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 33 - 40
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Ahmad, R, Bailey, J, Bornik, G, Danielson, P, Dowlatabadi, H, Levy, E and Longstaff, H 2006 A web-based instrument to model social norms: NERD design and results. Integrated Assessment: Bridging Science & Policy 6: 9–36Google Scholar
Appleby, M and Sandøe, P 2002 Philosophical debate on the nature of well-being: implications for animal welfare. Animal Welfare 11: 283–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arlinghaus, R, Cooke, SJ, Schwab, A and Cowx, IG 2007 Fish welfare: a challenge to the feelings based approach, with implications for recreational fishing. Fish and Fisheries 8: 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2007.00233.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, JL, Hemsworth, PH, Cronin, GM, Jongman, EC and Hutson, GD 2001 A review of the welfare issues for sows and piglets in relation to housing. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 52: 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1071/AR00057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bastian, B, Loughnan, S, Haslam, N and Radke, HR 2012 Don't mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38: 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211424291CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bentham, J 1789 An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Clarendon Press: Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1093/oseo/instance.00077240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohannon, J 2016 Mechanical Turk upends social sciences. Science 352: 1263–1264. https://doi.org/10.1126/sci-ence.352.6291.1263CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bracke, MBM and Hopster, H 2006 Assessing the importance of natural behavior for animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19: 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-005-4493-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, DM 1991 Animal welfare: concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science 69: 4167–4175. https://doi.org/10.2527/1991.69104167xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broom, DM 2011 A history of animal welfare science. Acta Biotheoretica 59: 121–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10441-011-9123-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broom, DM and Johnson, KG 1993 Stress and Animal Welfare. Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-0980-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browman, HI, Cooke, SJ, Cowx, IG, Derbyshire, SWG, Kasumyan, A, Key, B, Rose, JD, Schwab, A, Skiftesvik, AB, Stevens, ED, Watson, CA and Arlinghaus, R 2018 Welfare of aquatic animals: where things are, where they are going, and what it means for research, aquaculture, recreational angling, and com-mercial fishing. ICES Journal of Marine Science fsy067. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsy067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruijnis, MRN, Meijboom, FLB and Stassen, EN 2013 Longevity as an animal welfare issue applied to the case of foot disorders in dairy cattle. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26: 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-012-9376-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhrmester, M, Kwang, T and Gosling, SD 2011 Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science 6: 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardosa, C, von Keyserlingk, MAG, Hötzel, MJ, Robbins, JA and Weary, DM 2018 Hot and bothered: public attitudes towards heat stress and outdoor access for dairy cows. PLoS One 13: e0205352. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danielson, PA 2010 Designing a machine to learn about the ethics of robotics: The N-Reasons platform. Ethics and Information Technology 12: 251–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-009-9214-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS 2012 Why Animals Matter: Animal Consciousness, Animal Welfare, and Human Well-Being. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Degeling, C and Johnson, J 2015 Citizens, consumers and ani-mals: What role do experts assign to public values in establishing animal welfare standards? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28: 961–976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9571-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, IJ 2004 A concept of welfare based on feelings. In: Benson, GJ and Rollin, BE (eds) The Well-being of Farm Animals: Challenges and Solutions. Blackwell: Ames, IA, USA. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470344859.ch5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franks, B, Champagne, FA and Higgins, ET 2013 How enrichment affects exploration trade-offs in rats: implications for welfare and well-being. PLoS One 8 e83578. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 2003 Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: the interplay of science and values. Animal Welfare 12: 433–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 2008 Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in Its Cultural Context. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D, Weary, DM, Pajor, EA and Milligan, BN 1997 A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical con-cerns. Animal Welfare 6: 187–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, J 1986 Well-Being: Its Meaning, Measurement, and Moral Importance. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Haidt, J 2001 The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review 108:814–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansen, J, Holm, L, Frewer, L, Robinson, P and Sandøe, P 2003 Beyond the knowledge deficit: Recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks. Appetite 41: 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-6663(03)00079-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herzog, H 2010 Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It's So Hard To Think Straight About Animals. Harper: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Herzog, H, Rowan, A and Kossow, D 2001 Social attitudes and animals. In: Salem, DJ and Rowan, AN (eds) The State of the Animals 2001. Humane Society Press: Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Kasperbauer, TJ and Sandøe, P 2016 Killing as a welfare issue. In: Visak, T and Garner, R (eds) The Ethics of Killing Animal s pp 17–31. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Kraut, R 2009 What Is Good And Why: The Ethics Of Well-Being. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
Lassen, J, Sandøe, P and Forkman, B 2006 Happy pigs are dirty! Conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livestock Science 103: 221–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.05.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, BS and Ditto, PH 2013 What dilemma? Moral evaluation shapes factual belief. Social Psychological and Personality Science 4:316–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612456045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miele, M, Veissier, I, Evans, A and Botreau, R 2011 Animal welfare: establishing a dialogue between science and society. Animal Welfare 20: 103–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, MC 2004 Beyond compassion and humanity: Justice for nonhuman animals. In: Sunstein, CR and Nussbaum, MC (eds) Animal Rights. Current Debates and New Direction. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Robbins, JA 2017 Societal unease with modern agricultural production: the case of animal welfare. Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia, USAGoogle Scholar
Robbins, JA, Franks, B and von Keyserlingk, MAG 2018 ‘More than a feeling’: An empirical investigation of hedonistic accounts of animal welfare. PLoS One 13: e0193864. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193864CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rollin, BE 1995 Farm Animal Welfare: Social, Bioethical, and Research Issues. Iowa State University Press: Ames, IA, USAGoogle Scholar
Rosati, CS 2009 Relational good and the multiplicity problem. Philosophical Issues 19: 205–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-6077.2009.00167.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, M and Mason, GJ 2017 The effects of preferred natural stimuli on humans’ affective states, physiological stress and men-tal health, and the potential implications for well-being in captive animals. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 83: 46–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.09.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonsen, HB 1996 Assessment of animal welfare by a holistic approach: behaviour, health and measured opinion. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A, Animal Science Supplementum 27: 91–96Google Scholar
Špinka, M 2019 Animal agency, animal awareness and animal wel-fare. Animal Welfare 28: 11–20. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.28.1.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stafleu, FR, Grommers, FJ and Vorstenbosch, J 1996 Animal welfare: evolution and erosion of a moral concept. Animal Welfare 5: 225–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sumner, LW 1996 Welfare, Happiness, and Ethics. Oxford University Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Tannenbaum, J 1991 Ethics and animal welfare: the inextricable connection. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 198: 1360–1376CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tannenbaum, J 2002 The paradigm shift toward animal happiness. Society 39: 24–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-002-1002-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varner, GE 1998 In Nature's Interests? Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ventura, BA, von Keyserlingk, MAG, Wittman, H and Weary, DM 2016 What difference does a visit make? Changes in animal welfare perceptions after interested citizens tour a dairy farm. PLoS One 11: e0154733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Borell, E, Broom, DM, Csermely, D, Dijkhuizen, AA, Edwards, SA, Jensen, P, Madec, F and Stamataris, C 1997 The Welfare of Intensively Kept Pigs. Report of the Scientific Veterinary Committee. European Union: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Weary, DM, Schuppli, CA and von Keyserlingk, MAG 2011 Tail docking dairy cattle: Responses from an on-line engagement. Journal of Animal Science 89: 3831–3837. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2011-3858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, AJF 1994 Animal Welfare: A Cool Eye Towards Eden. Blackwell: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Weinberg, JM, Nichols, S and Stich, S 2001 Normativity and epistemic intuitions. Philosophical Topics 29: 429–460. https://doi.org/10.5840/philtopics2001291/217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widen, SC and Russell, JA 2010 Descriptive and prescriptive definitions of emotion. Emotion Review 2: 377–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073910374667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A 1999 Emotions Across Languages and Cultures. Cambridge University Press: New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511521256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeates, JW 2010 Death is a welfare issue. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 23: 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-009-9199-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeates, JW 2011 Is ‘a life worth living’ a concept worth having?’ Animal Welfare 20: 397–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You, X, Li, Y, Zhang, M, Yan, H and Zhao, R 2014 A survey of Chinese citizens’ perceptions on farm animal welfare. PLoS One 9: e109177. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0109177CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed