Abstract
The quest for a “theory of nonhuman minds” to assess claims about the moral status of animals is misguided. Misframed questions about animal minds facilitate the appropriation of animal welfare by the animal user industry. When misframed, these questions shift the burden of proof unreasonably to animal welfare regulators. An illustrative instance of misframing can be found in the US National Research Council’s 1998 publication that reports professional efforts to define the psychological well-being of nonhuman primates, a condition that the US 1985 animal welfare act requires users of primates to promote. The report claims that “psychological well-being” is a hypothetical construct whose validity can only be determined by a theory that defines its properties and links it to observed data. This conception is used to contest common knowledge about animal welfare by treating psychological well-being as a mental condition whose properties are difficult to discover. This framework limits regulatory efforts to treat animal subjects less oppressively and serves the interests of the user industry. A more liberatory framework can be constructed by recognizing the contested nature of welfare norms, where competing conceptions of animal welfare have implications about norm-setting authority, as it does in other regulatory contexts, e.g., food safety. Properly conceptualized, welfare should include both the avoidance of distressful circumstances and the relationship between an animal’s capacities to engage in enjoyable activities and its opportunities to exercise these capacities. This conception of animal welfare avoids appropriation by scientific experts.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
American Journal of Primatology (Official Journal of the American Society of Primatologists). Supplement 1 (1989), “Psychological well-being and environmental enrichment.” Wiley-Liss, 1990.
Benson, G. John and Bernard E. Rollin (eds.) (2004), The Well-Being of Farm Animals. Challenges and Solutions. Oxford: Blackwell.
Branch, M. N. (1977), “On the Role of ‘Memory’ in the Analysis of Behavior.” Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 28(2): 171–179.
Clingerman, K., S. Gleason, and J. Swanson (Animal Welfare Information Center) (1991), Animal Welfare Legislation: Bills and Public Laws, 1980–1988. (includes the Animal Welfare Act and its amendments). AWIC Series #8 October 1988 (rev. May 1991). Beltsville, MD: NAL.
DeGrazia, D. (1996), Taking Animals Seriously. Mental Life and Moral Status. New York: Cambridge University Press.
DeGrazia, D. (1998/99), “Animal Ethics Around the Turn of the Twenty-First Century.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 11(2): 111–129.
Duncan, Ian J. H. (2000), “Definition of Terms. Animal Welfare and States of Suffering and Pleasure.” SCAW Newsletter 22(2): 11–13.
Federal Register. Vol. 54, No. 49 (March 15, 1989), Part III, Dept. of Ag. APHIS, 9 CFR Parts 1, 2, and 3 Animal Welfare; Proposed Rules.
Federal Register. Vol. 54, No. 168 (August 31, 1989), Part IV. Dept. of Ag. APHIS, 9 CFR Parts 1, 2, and 3. Animal Welfare; Final Rules.
Federal Register. Vol. 56, No. 32 (February 15, 1991). Part II, Dept. of Ag., APHIS, 9 CFR Part 3. Animal Welfare, Standards; Final Rule.
Haraway, D. (1989), “A Pilot Plant for Human Engineering: Robert Yerkes and the Yale Laboratories of primate Biology, 1924–1942.” In Donna Haraway. Primate Visions. Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science. London: Routledge, pp. 59–83.
Haraway, D. (1991), “Animal Sociology and a Natural Economy of the Body Politic: A Political Physiology of Dominance.” In Donna Haraway Simians, Cyborgs, and Women. The Reinvention of Nature. London: Routledge, pp. 43–68.
International Primate Protection League (IPPL) (1990), Newsletter 17(3), November.
Keeling, M. E. (1990), “A Historical View.” In Joy A. Mench and Lee Krulisch (eds.), Well-being of Nonhuman Primates in Research. Bethesda, MD: Scientists Center for Animal Welfare.
MacCorquodale, K. and P. E. Meehl (1948), “On a Distinction Between Hypothetical Constructs and Intervening Variables.” Psychological Review 55: 95–107.
Mason, W. A. (1989), “Primatology and Primate Well-Being.” American Journal of Primatology Supplement 1: 1–4.
Melcher, J. (1991), “The Mental Health of Primates. We’re Still Needlessly Cruel to Research Animals in Our Labs.” Washington Post, September 8.
Mench, J. A. and L. Krulisch (eds.) (1990), Well-Being of Nonhuman Primates in Research. Bethesda, MD: Scientists Center for Animal Welfare.
Mench, J. A., S. J. Mayer, and L. Krulisch (1992), The Well-Being of Agricultural Animals in Biomedical and Agricultural Research. Proceedings from a SCAW-sponsored conference, Agricultural Animals in Research, held September 6–7, 1990 in Washington, DC. Bethesda, MD: Scientists Center for Animal Welfare.
National Research Council (1998), The Psychological Well-Being of Nonhuman Primates. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Novak, M. A. and A. J. Petto (eds.) (1991), Through the Looking Glass: Issues of Psychological; Well-Being in Captive Nonhuman Primates. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Novak, M. and S. J. Suomi (1988), “Psychological Well-Being of Primates in Captivity.” American Psychologist 43: 765–773.
Nussbaum, M. C. (1984), “Beyong ‘Compassion and Humanity‘: Justice for Nonhuman Animals.” In Cass New York: R. Sunstein and Martha C. Nusbaum (eds.), Animal Rights. Current Debates and New Directions. NewYork: Oxford University Press, pp. 299–320.
Rawls, J. (1971), A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rodd, R. (1990), Biology, Ethics, and Animals. Oxford: Clarendon.
Segal, E. (1989), Housing, Care and Psychological Wellbeing of Captive and Laboratory Primates. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Publication.
Thomas, R. K. and R. B. Lorden (1989), “What Is Psychological Well-Being? Can We Know If Primates Have It?.” In Evalyn F. Segal (ed.), Housing, Care and Psychological Wellbeing of Captive and Laboratory Primates. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes Publication, pp. 12–26.
US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1986), Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, OTA-BA-273, February.
US Congress (1984), H.R. 5725. Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals Act: And Enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Research, and Foreign Agriculture of the Committee on Agriculture House of Representative Ninety-eighth Congress, second session on H.R. 5725. September 19.
US Congress (1985), House of Representatives, 99th Congress, 1st Session. Report 99-447. Food Security Act of 1985. The Committee of Conference submitted the following report [to accompany H.R. 2100]. Dec 17.
US Congress (1970). Report to Accompany HR 19846. Animal Welfare Act of 1970.
Vandenbergh, J. G. (1989), “Issues Related to ‘Psychological Well-Being’ in Nonhuman Primates.” American Journal of Primatology Supplement 1: 9–15.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer Science + Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2008). Do Regulators of Animal Welfare Need to Develop a Theory of Psychological Well-Being?. In: Haynes, R.P. (eds) Animal Welfare. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8619-9_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8619-9_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-8787-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-8619-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)