ppt animal welfare

the animal welfare

Mihai Andreas Claudiu, Yang Boya

ANIMAL WELFARE IN LAW

In many countries, the term ‘welfare’ is noted in legislation. However, this has not meant that animal existence in human hands is free from suffering. One reason is that different understandings of welfare lead to highly conflicting views on how animals ought to be treated and what is the best for animals. One of the strongest motives for ignoring non-human suffering and ‘welfare problems’ is self- interest. This does not include only the vested interests of animal industries, but also the vested interests of ordinary people who consume animal products. Welfare legislations tend to be strongly influenced by financial and utilitarian considerations. One example is the manner in which they reflect current opinions as to which animals can feel pain and which cannot. - Animal welfare act of 1966 - Treaty of Amsterdam 1997 - Lisbon treaty 2009

a continuum of recognition

in terms of ethical debate there are different sides on the topic that developed in time

PROCESS 03

PROCESS 01

PROCESS 02

Jeremy Bentham on the other hand considered animal’s lack of moral agency is still philosophically important, but more often not invoked to deprive animals of increase in moral status. The sentience of animals means that we have some moral obligations to them.

Peter Singer believes that we ought to treat like interests alike (the equal consideration of interests), and because at least some animals are sentient, it is morally illegitimate to always prioritize human interests in not suffering

In the 19th century it was common to regard animals as morally unimportant, this view was associated to the French philosopher René Descartes, who held animals are automatons and their reactions were just mechanical responses.

VERSUS

While on the philosophical landscape there has been the grown in the acceptance of the importance of animal welfare, there are strong grounds suggesting that the animal welfare ethic is flawed, and the supporters on this view consider humans different and more important than animal life. The usual basis of this critic is the fact that for them humans possess a collection of mental characteristics (authonomy, memory, language and so on) that together constitute PERSONHOOD.

Regan argues that because some animals have beliefs and desires, perception, memory, a sense of future, an emotional life with feelings and pleasures and pain, preferences and interests, they have a welfare that is capable of being harmed not only by infliction of pain but also by death because it forecloses all possibilities to find satisfaction in life. Their rights shall be granted because they are subjects of a life.

ABOLITIONISM

Also known as abolitionist veganism, abolitionism is the animal rights opposition to all animal use by humans, intending to eliminate all forms of abuse taking in account that all sentient beings, human or non-humans, share a basic right not to be treated as objects and includes the adoption of veganism and non violence. It requires the complete rejection of non human consumption both as food and fashion but also as entertainment, research subjects and pets.

Animal Welfare Is Not Counterproductive

One objection to what has been described as new welfarism is the charge that it is a counterproductive strategyA number of responses to the “counterproductive” argument can be made. In the first place, it might be argued that significant welfare reforms are not just a staging post toward the achievement of animal rights goals, but are in themselves ethically desirable. A more productive critique of the counterproductive argument is that it is a charge that is impossible to prove because it involves a speculative judgment: “if such and such is done, then a future objective will not be possible.” . But how can we know all of this with certainty?

Animal Welfare Does Work, or Works Better Than the Alternatives

The second feature of animal rights abolitionism is the claim that animal welfare does not work. First, it is possible to confirm that reforms to the way animals are treated short of the abolition of particular practices can, in theory at least, be beneficial to animals. Abolitionists insist on the principle that the fact that animals are used is inconsistent with equality between humans and animals. Obviously, if the animals are used in such a way as to cause their suffering and death, then this is inconsistent with the principle of equal consideration of interests. But the use of animals does not necessarily lead to this result. While some welfare laws may be weak or poorly enforced, many reforms have led to tangible improvements in the lives of animals. In addition, several countries, including the United Kingdom, have legislated against activities such as fox hunting and fur farming. For example, regulations banning veal crates and sow stalls and tethers have been added as regulations under the 1968 Act,

A Defense of the Unnecessary Suffering Principle

Animal protection campaign focuses on ending unnecessary suffering. Francione (2000, xxiii-xxiv) suggests that we can all embrace what he calls the "principle of humane treatment", which prohibits the infliction of unnecessary suffering on animals. Over the past few decades, the range of what is considered unnecessary suffering has expanded, reflecting a growing awareness of the different ways in which animals suffer, changes in cultural norms, and technological advances that make the use of alternatives possible. For example, more than 30 years ago it was considered acceptable to wear fur and test cosmetics on animals. Now, however, many people frown upon both practices.

COnCLUSION

Although the philosophical case for granting animals at least some rights is strong, the achievement of animal rights goals are unrealistic at present. This would be problematic, and possibly fatal, for the animal rights movement if there were not a valid alternative Animals can not achieve their own liberation, and because of the reliance on human agency, it is hugely problematic to achieve reforms to the way animals are treated that will deny significant human interests.