共查询到5条相似文献,搜索用时 0 毫秒
1.
Albert W. Musschenga 《Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics》2002,15(2):171-186
There is an ongoing debate in animalethics on the meaning and scope of animalwelfare. In certain broader views, leading anatural life through the development of naturalcapabilities is also headed under the conceptof animal welfare. I argue that a concern forthe development of natural capabilities of ananimal such as expressed when living freelyshould be distinguished from the preservationof the naturalness of its behavior andappearance. However, it is not always clearwhere a plea for natural living changes overinto a plea for the preservation of theirnaturalness or wildness. In the first part ofthis article, I examine to what extent theconcerns for natural living meet ``theexperience requirement.' I conclude that someof these concerns go beyond welfare. In thesecond part of the article. I ask whether wehave moral reasons to respect concernsfor the naturalness of an animal's living thattranscend its welfare. I argue that the moralrelevance of such considerations can be graspedwhen we see animals as entities bearingnon-moral intrinsic values. In my view the``natural' appearance and behavior of an animalmay embody intrinsic values. Caring for ananimal's naturalness should then be understoodas caring for such intrinsic values. Intrinsicvalues provide moral reasons for action iffthey are seen as constitutive of the good lifefor humans. I conclude by reinterpreting,within the framework of a perfectionist ethicaltheory, the notion of indirect dutiesregarding animals, which go beyond andsupplement the direct duties towardsanimals. 相似文献
2.
Continued concern for animal welfare may be alleviated when welfare would be monitored on farms. Monitoring can be characterized as an information system where various stakeholders periodically exchange relevant information. Stakeholders include producers, consumers, retailers, the government, scientists, and others. Valuating animal welfare in the animal-product market chain is regarded as a key challenge to further improve the welfare of farm animals and information on the welfare of animals must, therefore, be assessed objectively, for instance, through monitoring. Interviews with Dutch stakeholder representatives were conducted to identify their perceptions about the monitoring of animal welfare. Stakeholder perceptions were characterized in relation to the specific perspectives of each stakeholder. While producers tend to perceive welfare from a production point of view, consumers will use visual images derived from traditional farming and from the animals natural environments. Scientists perceptions of animal welfare are affected by the need to measure welfare with quantifiable parameters. Retailers and governments (policy makers) have views of welfare that are derived from their relationships with producers, consumers, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and scientists. All interviewed stakeholder representatives stated that animal welfare is important. They varied in the extent to which they weighted economic considerations relative to concern for the animals welfare. Many stakeholders emphasized the importance of communication in making a monitoring system work. Overall, the perspectives for the development of a sustainable monitoring system that substantially improves farm animal welfare were assessed as being poor in the short term. However, a reliable system could be initiated under certain conditions, such as integrated chains and with influential and motivated stakeholders. A scheme is described with attention points for the development of sustainable monitoring systems for farm animal welfare in the long term. 相似文献
3.
Stefan Aerts Dirk Lips Stuart Spencer Eddy Decuypere Johan De Tavernier 《Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics》2006,19(1):67-76
When making an assessment of animal welfare, it is important to take environmental (housing) or animal-based parameters into
account. An alternative approach is to focus on the behavior and appearance of the animal, without making actual measurements
or quantifying this. None of these tell the whole story. In this paper, we suggest that it is possible to find common ground
between these (seemingly) diametrically opposed positions and argue that this may be the way to deal with the complexity of
animal welfare. The model will have to be acceptable for the different parties that will be affected by it and real benefits
for the animal should result from it. This will be the basis of a practical ethical approach. All this can be condensed into
a model that essentially is made up out of three basic elements: the classical welfare analysis with an existing welfare assessment
tool, an assessment of the stockholder, and an implementation of the Free Choice Profiling technique. This new framework does
not pretend to be a different or better animal welfare matrix; it is intended to integrate existing knowledge and to provide
a practical tool to improve animal welfare. It identifies whether there are welfare problems on a farm, if present whether
these problems are caused by the housing system or the stockholder, and what can be done to improve the situation. 相似文献
4.
M.B.M. Bracke J.H.M. Metz A.A. Dijkhuizen B.M. Spruijt 《Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics》2001,14(3):321-337
Due to increasing empiricalinformation on farm animal welfare since the1960s, the prospects for sound decisionmakingconcerning welfare have improved. This paperdescribes a strategy to develop adecision-making aid, a decision support system,for assessment of farm-animal welfare based onavailable scientific knowledge. Such a decisionsupport system allows many factors to be takeninto account. It is to be developed accordingto the Evolutionary Prototyping Method, inwhich an initial prototype is improved inreiterative updating cycles. This initialprototype has been constructed. It useshierarchical representations to analysescientific statements and statements describingthe housing system. Welfare is assessed fromwhat is known about the biological needs of theanimals, using a welfare model in the form of atree that contains these needs as welfarecomponents. Each state of need is assessedusing welfare relevant attributes of thehousing system and weighting factors.Attributes are measurable properties of thehousing system. Weighting factors are assignedaccording to heuristic rules based on theprinciple of weighting all components(attributes and needs) equally, unless thereare strong reasons to do otherwise. Preliminarytests of the prototype indicate that it may bepossible to perform assessment of farm-animalwelfare in an explicit way and based onempirical findings. The procedure needs to berefined, but its prospects are promising. 相似文献
5.
Daniela Rabbie 《Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics》2000,13(3-4):219-227
The influence of religious beliefs on people's attitudes andactions in the area of animal welfare was examined by interviewing dairyworkers on kibbutzim (communal agricultural settlements) in Israel.Workers on religiously observant kibbutzim were no more consistent intheir attitudes toward and treatment of dairy cows than workers onnon-observant and selectively observant kibbutzim. 相似文献