Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:34:20.621Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Animal Cognition and Human Values

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Jonathan Birch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Animal welfare scientists face an acute version of the problem of inductive risk since they must choose whether to affirm attributions of mental states to animals in advisory contexts, knowing their decisions hold consequences for animal welfare. In such contexts, the burden of proof should be sensitive to the consequences of error, but a framework for setting appropriate burdens of proof is lacking. Through reflection on two cases—pain and cognitive enrichment—I arrive at a tentative framework based on the principle of expected welfare maximization. I then discuss the limitations of this framework and the questions it leaves open.

Type
Cognitive Sciences
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 85 , Issue 5 , December 2018 , pp. 1026 - 1037
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

This article is based on my contribution to the PSA Women’s Caucus Prize Symposium on Animal Cognition and Animal Welfare, held at the 25th biennial meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association in Atlanta, November 3–6, 2016. I thank my fellow symposium participants (Marta Halina, Kristin Andrews, Colin Allen, and Lori Marino), the PSA Women’s Caucus for its support, and the audience members for their excellent questions and comments. I also thank Caroline Birch, Andrew Buskell, Marta Halina, and an anonymous reviewer for their comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by a Philip Leverhulme Prize from the Leverhulme Trust.

References

Adamo, Shelley Anne. 2016. “Do Insects Feel Pain? A Question at the Intersection of Animal Behaviour, Philosophy and Robotics.” Animal Behaviour 118:75–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AHAW (Animal Health and Animal Welfare Panel of the European Food Standards Agency). 2005. “Aspects of the Biology and Welfare of Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes.” EFSA Journal 292:1–46.Google Scholar
Alexandrova, Anna. 2012. “Well-Being as an Object of Science.” Philosophy of Science 79:678–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Colin. 2004. “Animal Pain.” Noûs 38:617–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Colin 2013. “Fish Cognition and Consciousness.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26:25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen-Hermanson, Sean. 2005. “Morgan’s Canon Revisited.” Philosophy of Science 72:608–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Kristin, and Huss, Brian. 2014. “Anthropomorphism, Anthropectomy, and the Null Hypothesis.” Biology and Philosophy 29:711–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Paul L. R. 2011. “Laboratory Invertebrates: Only Spineless, or Spineless and Painless?” ILAR Journal 52:121–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bateson, Patrick. 1991. “Assessment of Pain in Animals.” Animal Behaviour 42:827–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sector, Bioscience. 2009. “A Bioscience Sector Response to the House of Lords European Union Committee Inquiry: Revision of Directive 86/609 on the Protection of Animals Used for Scientific Purposes.” Report, Medical Research Center.Google Scholar
Birch, Jonathan. 2017. “Animal Sentience and the Precautionary Principle.” Animal Sentience 16 (1). http://animalstudiesrepository.org/animsent/vol2/iss16/1/.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, R. Harry. 1998. “Consciousness in Non-human Animals: Adopting the Precautionary Principle.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 5:108–14.Google Scholar
Broom, Donald M. 2014. Sentience and Animal Welfare. Wallingford: CABI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, Donald M., and Fraser, A. F.. 2015. Domestic Animal Behaviour and Welfare. 5th ed. Wallingford: CABI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broom, Donald M., and Johnson, K. G.. 1993. Stress and Animal Welfare. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, Marian Stamp. 1980. Animal Suffering: The Science of Animal Welfare. London: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Waal, Frans B. M. 1999. “Anthropomorphism and Anthropodenial: Consistency in Our Thinking about Humans and Other Animals.” Philosophical Topics 27:255–80.Google Scholar
Douglas, Heather E. 2000. “Inductive Risk and Values in Science.” Philosophy of Science 67:559–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather E. 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value Free Ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, Simon. 2008. “Doing Away with Morgan’s Canon.” Mind and Language 23:224–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagen, Kristin, and Broom, Donald M.. 2004. “Emotional Responses to Learning in Cattle.” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 85:203–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffrey, Richard C. 1956. “Valuation and Acceptance of Scientific Hypotheses.” Philosophy of Science 23:237–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 2002. Science, Truth and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip 2011. Science in a Democratic Society. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip 2015. “Experimental Animals.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 43:287–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langbein, Jan, Siebert, Katrin, and Nürnberg, Gerd. 2009. “On the Use of an Automated Learning Device by Group-Housed Dwarf Goats: Do Goats Seek Cognitive Challenges?” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 120:150–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manteuffel, Gerhard, Langbein, Jan, and Puppe, Birger. 2009. “Increasing Farm Animal Welfare by Positively Motivated Instrumental Behaviour.” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 118:191–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meehan, Cheryl L., and Mench, Joy A.. 2007. “The Challenge of Challenge: Can Problem Solving Opportunities Enhance Animal Welfare?” Applied Animal Behaviour Science 102:246–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, C. Lloyd. 1894. An Introduction to Comparative Psychology. London: Scott.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puppe, Birger, Ernst, Katrin, Schön, Peter C., and Manteuffel, Gerhard. 2007. “Cognitive Enrichment Affects Behavioural Reactivity in Domestic Pigs.” Applied Animal Behavior Science 105:75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudner, Richard. 1953. “The Scientist qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments.” Philosophy of Science 20:1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sneddon, Lynne U., Elwood, Robert W., Adamo, Shelley A., and Leach, Matthew C.. 2014. “Defining and Assessing Animal Pain.” Animal Behaviour 97:201–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, Elliott. 2000. “Evolution and the Problem of Other Minds.” Journal of Philosophy 97:365–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, Elliott 2005. “Comparative Psychology Meets Evolutionary Biology.” In Thinking with Animals, ed. Daston, Lorraine and Mitman, Gregg, 85–99. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Steele, Katie. 2012. “The Scientist qua Policy Advisor Makes Value Judgments.” Philosophy of Science 79:893–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zebunke, Manuela, Langbein, Jan, Manteuffel, Gerhard, and Puppe, Birger. 2011. “Autonomic Reactions Indicating Positive Affect during Acoustic Reward Learning in Pigs.” Animal Behaviour 81:481–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar