Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-05T18:45:21.768Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing Animal Welfare: Where Does Science End and Philosophy Begin?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

P Sandøe  and
H B Simonsen
P Sandøe
Affiliation:
Department of Education, Philosophy and Rhetorics, University of Copenhagen, Njalsgade 80, DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark
H B Simonsen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science and Animal Health, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Denmark
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To be able to assess animal welfare the researcher must presuppose a number of background assumptions that cannot be tested by means of ordinary empirical data collection. In order to substantiate these assumptions two sorts of inferences have to be relied upon, which the authors designate by the terms ‘analogies’ and ‘homologies’. Analogies are evaluative, philosophical reflections by means of which it is made clear what provisions or states constitute the welfare of humans and other animals. By means of analogies it may, for example be argued that animal welfare consists of subjective experiences such as pain, boredom, pleasure and expectation. Also by means of analogies the relative ‘weight’ of these states can be decided. Homologies are part of theoretical science. They serve to clarify how the relevant experiences are linked to measurable anatomical, physiological and behavioural parameters.

An account is given of the steps which have to be taken to give a full answer to a question concerning the welfare of animals. In the account only farm animals are mentioned, but the same steps, of course, also have to be taken to answer questions concerning the welfare of other kinds of animals be they companion, laboratory, zoo or wild. Eight steps are described, and it is argued that both analogies and homologies are needed at very fundamental levels. Therefore, if animal welfare science is to provide relevant, rational and reliable answers to questions concerning animal welfare, it must be an interdisciplinary inquiry involving philosophical reflections and theoretical biology.

Keywords

animal welfareethicsmethodologyphilosophysubjective experiences
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 1 , Issue 4 , November 1992 , pp. 257 - 267
Copyright
© 1992 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

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.)

References

Cabanac, M 1971 Physiological role of pleasure. Science 173: 1103–1107CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawkins, M 1980 Animal Suffering. Chapman and Hall: LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I J H, Dawkins, M S 1983 The problem of assessing ‘well-being’ and ‘suffering’ in farm animals. In Smidt, D (ed) Indicators Relevant to Farm Animal Welfare, pp 13–24. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers for the Commission of the European Communities: The HagueCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I J H, Filshie, J H 1980 The use of radio telemetry to measure temperature and heart rate in domestic fowl. In Amlaner, C J Jr, Macdonald, D W (eds) A Handbook on Biotelemetry and Radio Tracking, pp 579–588. Pergamon Press: OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, A F, Broom, D M 1990 Farm Animal Behaviour and Welfare, 3rd edition. Baillière Tindall: LondonGoogle Scholar
Griffin, J 1986 Well-being. Clarendon Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
Harrison, P 1991 Do animals feel pain? Philosophy 66: 25–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parfit, D 1984 Reasons and Persons. Clarendon Press: OxfordGoogle Scholar
Regan, T, Singer, P (eds) 1989 Animal Rights and Human Obligations, 2nd edition, pp 13–19. (A selection of quotations) Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
Rollin, B E 1989 The Unheeded Cry. Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain and Science. Oxford University Press: OxfordGoogle Scholar
Sen, A 1980/81 Plural utility. Proceedings of The Aristotelian Society, New Series 81: 193–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smidt, D 1983 Advantages and problems of using integrated systems of indicators as compared to single traits. In Smidt, D (ed) Indicators Relevant to Farm Animal Welfare, pp 201–207. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers for the Commission of the European Communities: The HagueCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J A, Boyd, K M (eds) 1991 Lives in the Balance: The Ethics of Using Animals in Biomedical Research. Oxford University Press: OxfordGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tannenbaum, J 1991 Ethics and animal welfare: the inextricable connection. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 198: 1360–1376Google ScholarPubMed
Wiepkema, P R 1983 Umwelt and animal welfare. In Baxter, S H, Baxter, M R, MacCormack, J A D (eds) Farm Animal Housing and Welfare, pp 45–50. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers for the Commission of the European Communities: The HagueGoogle Scholar