The Natural Behavior Debate: Two Conceptions of Animal Welfare

Abstract

The performance of natural behaviour is commonly used as a criterion in the determination of animal welfare. This is still true, despite many authors having demonstrated that it is not a necessary component of welfare-some natural behaviours may decrease welfare, while some unnatural behaviours increase it. Here I analyse why this idea persists, and what effects it may have. I argue that the disagreement underlying this debate on natural behaviour is not one about what conditions affect welfare, but a deeper conceptual disagreement about what the state of welfare actually consists of. Those advocating natural behaviour typically take a 'teleological' view of welfare, in which naturalness is fundamental to welfare, while opponents to the criterion usually take a 'subjective' welfare concept, in which welfare consists of the subjective experience of life by the animal. I argue that as natural functioning is neither necessary nor sufficient for understanding welfare, we should move away from the natural behaviour criterion to an alternative such as behavioural preferences or enjoyment. This will have effects in the way we understand and measure welfare, and particularly in how we provide for the welfare of animals in a captive setting.

Is Humane Slaughter Possible?

“…Taking away an opportunity for me to experience some form of pleasure will still decrease my welfare, regardless of whether or not I was aware of the opportunity and desired it, as I now have lower welfare than I might otherwise have had. This is relevantly different than the case of tractors, or plants, as these objects lack the experiential component of good or bad events that make the events matter to them [33]. It is the fact that these experiences matter to the animals themselves that adds moral weight to their experiences, regardless of whether or not they are able to desire them in advance.…”

Assessing Animal Welfare with Behavior: Onward with Caution

“…It is so thoroughly ingrained in the zoo community that no model of animal welfare can exist in that community without reference to natural behavior. The model has been criticized for numerous reasons but primarily that the performance of natural behavior may not actually reflect positive welfare unless welfare itself is defined as the expression of natural behavior [35][36][37]. For that reason, the concept can be further criticized as one arisen from circular reasoning.…”

Perspectival pluralism for animal welfare

“…An animal can be living a perfectly natural life, but suffer immensely from these effects. It is therefore typically used instrumentally, in identifying living conditions or behaviours that may be beneficial to welfare as understood through one of the other approaches (Browning 2019). In the absence of other confounding factors, natural living is often a good guide to those conditions and behaviours that will benefit welfare (Špinka 2006).…”

“…Though caution must be taken in interpreting these results (see e.g.Veasey et al 1996a, b;Browning 2019) …”