Concepts of Animal Welfare in Relation to Positions in Animal Ethics

Abstract

When animal ethicists deal with welfare they seem to face a dilemma: On the one hand, they recognize the necessity of welfare concepts for their ethical approaches. On the other hand, many animal ethicists do not want to be considered reformist welfarists. Moreover, animal welfare scientists may feel pressed by moral demands for a fundamental change in our attitude towards animals. The analysis of this conflict from the perspective of animal ethics shows that animal welfare science and animal ethics highly depend on each other. Welfare concepts are indispensable in the whole field of animal ethics. Evidence for this can be found by analyzing the structure of theories of animal ethics and the different ways in which these theories employ welfare concepts. Furthermore, the background of values underneath every welfare theory is essential to pursue animal welfare science. Animal ethics can make important contributions to the clarification of underlying normative assumptions with regard to the value of the animal, with regard to ideas about what is valuable for the animal, and with regard to the actions that should follow from the results of animal welfare science.

Environmental judgment in early childhood and its relationship with the understanding of the concept of living beings

“…These trends are consistent with Hussar and Horvath (2011), to the extent that these authors also confirm that young children consider environmentally harmful behaviour more serious than social-conventional transgressions. Likewise, the presented data agrees with those investigations which claim that even young children consider that the environment deserves a singular moral status when it comes to evaluating the actions that human beings carry out in the natural world(Ergazaki & Andriotou, 2010; Severson & Kahn, 2010; Schmidt, 2011). …”

“…Moreover, complementary data regarding young children’s environmental judgment refers to the finding that young children are able to use biocentric reasoning (namely, judgments linked to the idea that the environment is worthy of some kind of moral status -Schmidt, 2011-) when it comes to judging environmental transgressions (Ergazaki & Andriotou, 2010; Hussar & Horvath, 2011; Severson & Kahn, 2010). …”

Healthy, Happy and Humane: Evidence in Farm Animal Welfare Policy

“…; Leeb ). But here opinions differ; whereas Schmidt (, p. 170) pleads for scientific research that delivers the knowledge needed for making the morally appropriate decisions, Haynes (, p. 199) criticises the scientific ‘appropriation of animal welfare concerns’, where the ethical position chosen is never explicated and values become hidden in animal welfare science, that presents itself as objective and thereby claims authority. In doing so animal welfare sciences legitimises in his view the ongoing misuse of farm animals and alienates itself from animal protection.…”

Empirical Methods in Animal Ethics

“…There is literature on the relevance of empirical knowledge that might be crucial for animal ethics, though: On the one hand, it is claimed that findings about the abilities and properties of nonhuman animals are relevant (Schmidt 2011;Bortolotti 2007;Elwood et al 2009;Broom 2007;Dawkins 2008). Properties of certain (groups of) nonhuman animals like the ability to experience pain or suffering, being self-conscious, or acting intentionally can be parts of ethical arguments.…”

“…In animal ethics 1 empirical data are hardly collected at all-it is mainly ''armchair philosophy'' (Schmidt 2011). However, animal ethicists make use of empirical facts for their arguments, regularly.…”