Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Animal Neopragmatism pp 17–38Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

The Political Problem of Welfare

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 151 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter I explain the political problem of welfare. There is a question mark hanging over the democratic legitimacy of the prevailing policy conception of welfare. The political problem of welfare arises because of a key difference between the policy conception of welfare and the folk conception of welfare. The policy conception is that welfare is all about feelings, specifically, measurable suffering; the folk conception is that welfare is about more than feelings. The folk view encompasses nonhedonistic considerations such as dignity, respect, and naturalness. I explain the development of the policy conception and identify its origins in animal welfare science and the theory of value known as hedonism. I present a survey of the attitudes-to-animals literature as support for the claim that the folk view of welfare is broad-based.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anil, Leena, Sukumarannair S. Anil, and John Deen. 2005. Pain detection and amelioration in animals on the farm: Issues and options. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 8 (4): 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327604jaws0804_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentham, Jeremy. [1789] 2007. An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Mineola, NY: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blokhuis, H.J., I. Veissier, M. Miele, and B. Jones. 2010. The Welfare Quality® project and beyond: Safeguarding farm animal well-being. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section a—Animal Science 60 (3): 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064702.2010.523480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bracke, M.B.M., and H. Hopster. 2006. Assessing the importance of natural behaviour for animal welfare. Journal Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18: 77–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradford, Gwen, and Simon Keller. 2016. Well-being and achievement. In The Routledge handbook of the philosophy of well-being, ed. Guy Fletcher, 271–280. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broom, Donald. 2011. A history of animal welfare science. Acta Biotheoretica 59: 121–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broom, Donald K., and Ken G. Johnson. 1993. Stress and animal welfare. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cataldi, Sue L. 2002. Animals and the concept of dignity: Critical reflections on a circus performance. Ethics and the Environment 7 (2): 104–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Peter John. 2016. Animal welfare in Australia: Politics and policy. Sydney: Sydney University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, Beth, Gavin B. Stewart, Luca A. Panzone, I. Kyriazakis, and Lynn J. Frewer. 2016. A systematic review of public attitudes, perceptions and behaviours towards production diseases associated with farm animal welfare. Journal Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29: 455–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, Marion S. 1980. Animal suffering: The science of animal welfare. London: Chapman & Hall.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Degeling, Chris, and Jane Johnson. 2015. Citizens, consumers and animals: What role do experts assign to public values in establishing animal welfare standards? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28: 961–976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, Ian. 2006. The changing concept of animal sentience. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 100: 11–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, David. 1998. Animal welfare. In Encyclopedia of animal rights and animal welfare, ed. Marc Bekoff and Carron A. Meaney. Westport: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, David. 1999. Animal ethics and animal welfare science: Bridging the two cultures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 171–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, David. 2008. Understanding animal welfare: The science in its cultural context. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, David, and Ian Duncan. 1998. ‘‘Pleasures’’, ‘‘pains’’ and animal welfare: Toward a natural history of affect. Animal Welfare 7: 383–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, Alex. 2016. Hedonism. In The Routledge handbook of philosophy of well-being, ed. Guy Fletcher, 113–123. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadley, John. 2017. From welfare to rights without changing the subject. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 20 (5): 993–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, Ruth. 1964. Animal machines: The new factory farming industry. London: Vincent Stuart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, Jennifer. 2016. The experience machine and the experience requirement. In The Routledge handbook of the philosophy of well-being, ed. Guy Fletcher, 355–365. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, Richard P. 2008. Animal welfare: Competing conceptions and their ethical implications. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heleski, C.R., A.G. Mertig, and A.J. Zanella. 2004. Assessing attitudes to farm animal welfare: A national survey of animal science faculty. Journal of Animal Science 82: 2806–2814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, Rebekah. 2016. Dignity and its violation examined within the context of animal ethics. Ethics and the Environment 21 (2): 143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahane, Guy. 2016. Pain, experience and well-being. In The Routledge handbook of the philosophy of well-being, ed. Guy Fletcher, 209–220. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lassen, J., P. Sandøe, and B. Forkman. 2006. Happy pigs are dirty! Conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livestock Science 103 (3): 221–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marie, M. 2006. Ethics: The new challenge for animal agriculture. Livestock Science 103 (3): 203–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellor, David J. 2012. Animal emotions, behaviour and the promotion of positive welfare states. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 60 (1): 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellor, David J., and N.J. Beausoleil. 2015. Extending the ‘five domains’ model for animal welfare assessment to incorporate positive welfare states. Animal Welfare 24: 241–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mench, Joy. 1998. Thirty years after Brambell: Whither animal science? Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 1 (2): 91–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miele, M., I. Veissier, A. Evans, and R. Botreau. 2011. Animal welfare: Establishing a dialogue between science and society. Animal Welfare 20: 103–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millman, Suzanne T. 2009. Animal welfare—Scientific approaches to the issues. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 12 (2): 88–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, Martha. 2006. Frontiers of justice: Disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohl, F., and F.J. van der Staay. 2012. Animal welfare: At the interface between science and society. The Veterinary Journal 192 (1): 13–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, Clive. 2013. Animal welfare standards must work for all, not just industry. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/animal-welfare-standards-must-work-for-all-not-just-industry-12498. Accessed 4 Apr 2019.

  • Rice, Christopher M. 2016. Well-being and animals. In The Routledge handbook of the philosophy of well-being, ed. Guy Fletcher, 378–388. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbins, Jesse, Becca Franks, and Marina A.G. von Keyerlingk. 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.0193864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rushen, J. 2003. Changing concepts of farm animal welfare: Bridging the gap between applied and basic research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81: 199–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Signal, T., and N. Taylor. 2006. Attitudes to animals in the animal protection community compared to a normative community sample. Society and Animals 14 (3): 265–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Southwell, A., A. Bessey, and B. Baker. 2006. Attitudes towards animal welfare: A research report. Canberra: TNS Consultants.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tannenbaum, J. 1991. Ethics and animal welfare: The inextricable connection. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 198: 1360–1376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Te Velde, H.T., N. Aarts, and C. Van Woerkum. 2002. Dealing with ambivalence: Farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15 (2): 203–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanhonacker, Filiep, Wim Verbeke, Els Van Poucke, and Frank A.M. Tuyttens. 2008. Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livestock Science 116 (2008): 126–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanhonacker, F., E. Van Poucke, F. Tuyttens, and W. Verbeke. 2010. Citizens’ views on farm animal welfare and related information provision: Exploratory insights from Flanders, Belgium. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 23: 551–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanhonacker, F., W. Verbeke, E. Van Poucke, Z. Pieniak, G. Nijs, and F. Tuyttens. 2012. The concept of farm animal welfare: Citizen perceptions and stakeholder opinion in Flanders, Belgium. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (1): 79–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vigors, B. 2018. Reducing the consumer attitude–behaviour gap in animal welfare: The potential role of ‘nudges’. Animals 8: 232. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8120232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, John. 1994. Animal welfare: A cool eye towards Eden. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, V.M., B.D. Lascelles, and M.C. Robson. 2005. Current attitudes to, and use of, peri-operative analgesia in dogs and cats by veterinarians in New Zealand. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 53 (3): 193–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeates, J.W., and D.C.J. Main. 2008. An assessment of positive welfare: A review. The Veterinary Journal 175: 293–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeates, J.W., H. Röcklinsberg, and M. Gjerris. 2011. Is welfare all that matters? A discussion of what should be included in policy-making regarding animals. Animal Welfare 20: 423–432.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia

    John Hadley

Authors
  1. John Hadley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Hadley .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hadley, J. (2019). The Political Problem of Welfare. In: Animal Neopragmatism. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25980-8_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation