Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:41:27.294Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Animal welfare science, varieties of value and philosophical methodology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

DW Bruckner
DW Bruckner*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Penn State University, New Kensington, 3550 Seventh Street Road, New Kensington, PA 15068, USA
*
email: donald.bruckner@psu.edu
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 are competing conceptions of animal welfare in the scientific literature. Debate among proponents of these various conceptions continues. This paper examines methodologies for use in attempting to justify a conception of animal welfare. It is argued that philosophical methodology relying on conceptual analysis has a central role to play in this debate. To begin, the traditional division between facts and values is refined by distinguishing different types of values, or norms. Once this distinction is made, it is argued that the common recognition that any conception of animal welfare is inherently normative is correct, but that it is not ethical normativity that is at issue. The sort of philosophical methodology appropriate to use in investigating the competing normative conceptions of animal welfare is explained. Finally, the threads of the paper are brought together to consider the appropriate role of recent empirical work into folk conceptions of animal welfare in determining the proper conception of animal welfare. It is argued that empirical results about folk conceptions are useful inputs into conceptual philosophical investigation into the competing conceptions of animal welfare. Further mutual inquiry by philosophers and animal welfare scientists is needed to advance our knowledge of what animal welfare is.

Keywords

animal welfarefolk conceptionsmethodologyphilosophyprudencevalues
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , November 2020 , pp. 387 - 397
Copyright
© 2020 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Appleby, MC and Sandøe, P 2002 Philosophical debate on the nature of well-being: Implications for animal welfare. Animal Welfare 11(3): 283–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, B 2015 Well-being. Polity Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Broom, DM 1991 Animal welfare: Concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science 69(10): 4167–4175. https://doi.org/10.2527/1991.69104167xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broom, DM 2011 A history of animal welfare science. Acta Biotheoretica 59(2): 121–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10441-011-9123-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, SM 2016 The concept of well-being. In: Fletcher, G (ed) The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Well-being pp 402–413. Routledge: Abingdon, UKGoogle Scholar
Cardoso, CS, von Keyserlingk, MAG, Hötzel, MJ, Robbins, J and Weary, DM 2018 Hot and bothered: Public attitudes towards heat stress and outdoor access for dairy cows. PLoS One 13(10): e0205352. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205352CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawkins, MS 2006 A user's guide to animal welfare science. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 21(2): 77–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.10.017CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawkins, MS 2008 The science of animal suffering. Ethology 114(10): 937–945. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2008.01557.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, MS 2017 Animal welfare and efficient production: Is conflict inevitable? Animal Production Science 57(2): 201–208. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN15383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, IJH 1993 Welfare is to do with what animals feel. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6(S2): 8–14Google Scholar
Feldman, F 2010 On the philosophical implications of empirical research on happiness. Social Research 77(2): 625–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, G 2016a The Philosophy of Well-being: An Introduction. Routledge: Abingdon, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315745329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, G 2016b The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Well-being. Routledge: Abingdon, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315682266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 1995 Science, values and animal welfare: Exploring the ‘inextricable connection.’ Animal Welfare 4(2): 103–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 1999 Animal ethics and animal welfare science: Bridging the two cultures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65(3): 171–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00090-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 2008 Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in its Cultural Context. Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D and Preece, R 2004 Animal ethics and the scientific study of animals: Bridging the ‘is’ and the ‘ought’. Essays in Philosophy 5(2): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.5840/eip20045214CrossRefGoogle 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(3): 187–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gauthier, D 1986 Morals by Agreement. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1093/0198249926.001.0001Google Scholar
Harrison, R 1964 Animal Machines: The New Factory Farming Industry. Vincent Stuart Publishers: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Haynes, RP 2008 Animal Welfare. Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8619-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haynes, RP 2011 Competing conceptions of animal welfare and their ethical implications for the treatment of non-human animals. Acta Biotheoretica 59(2): 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10441-011-9124-2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heise, H and Theuvsen, L 2018 Citizens’ understanding of wel-fare of animals on the farm: An empirical study. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 21(2): 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2017.1400439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbes, T 1651 Leviathan. Hackett Publishing Company: Indianapolis, IN, USAGoogle Scholar
Hurnik, JF and Lehman, H 1988 Ethics and farm animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural Ethics 1(4): 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01826794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kesebir, P and Diener, E 2008 In pursuit of happiness: Empirical answers to philosophical questions. Perspectives on Psychological Science 3(2): 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00069.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knobe, J and Nichols, S 2008 Experimental Philosophy. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Knobe, J and Nichols, S 2014 Experimental Philosophy, Volume 2. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198718765.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knobe, J and Nichols, S 2017 The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/experimental-philosophy/Google Scholar
Nagel, T 1970 Death. Noûs 4(1): 73–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/2214297Google Scholar
Nordenfelt, L 2006 Animal and Human Health and Welfare: A Comparative Philosophical Analysis. CAB International: Oxfordshire, UK. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845930592.0000Google Scholar
Plato 1992 Republic. Hackett Publishing Company: Indianapolis, IN, USAGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J 1971 A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USACrossRefGoogle 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(3): e0193864. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193864CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rollin, BE 1993 Animal welfare, science, and value. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6(S2): 44–50Google Scholar
Rollin, BE 1995 Farm Animal Welfare: Social, Bioethical, and Research Issues. Iowa State University Press: Ames, IA, USAGoogle Scholar
Rollin, BE 2015 The inseparability of science and ethics in animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28(4): 759–765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-015-9558-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandøe, P 1996 Animal and human welfare: Are they the same kind of thing? Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science (Supplementum, Volume 27): 11-15Google Scholar
Sandøe, P and Simonsen, HB 1992 Assessing animal welfare: Where does science end and philosophy begin? Animal Welfare 1(4): 257–267. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.1.3.257Google Scholar
Schmidt, K 2011 Concepts of animal welfare in relation to positions in animal ethics. Acta Biotheoretica 59(2): 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10441-011-9128-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tannenbaum, J 1991 Ethics and animal welfare: The inextricable connection. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 198(8): 1360–1376Google ScholarPubMed
Tiberius, V 2013a Philosophical methods in happiness research. In: Boniwell, I, David, SA and Ayers, AC (eds) Oxford Handbook of Happiness pp 315–325. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199557257.013.0024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiberius, V 2013b Well-being, wisdom, and thick theorizing: On the division of labor between moral philosophy and positive psy-chology. In: Kirchin, S (ed) Thick Concepts pp 217–233. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199672349.003.0013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weary, DM and Robbins, JA 2019 Understanding the multiple conceptions of animal welfare. Animal Welfare 28(1): 33–40. https://doi.org/10.7120/09627286.28.1.033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weijers, D 2020 Teaching well-being/quality of life from a philo-sophical perspective. In: Tonon GH (ed) Teaching Quality of Life in Different Domains, Social Indicators Research Series 79 pp 15–41. Springer Nature: Basel, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21551-4_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar