FELASA Module 2: Animal Ethics and Welfare
Animal Ethics describes and discusses different views on how animals ought to be treated
in our care
Animal ethics has developed over time
Previously it was allowed to strap live animals to a table and observe their organs in
vivo
Now with anesthetics and and analgesics this wouldn’t be allowed
The EU directive states that public concern should be addressed by treating animals as
sentient beings and restrict their use as much as possible
Scientists working with animals should make their ethical principles for handling and
using animals accessible to the public
In Denmark the Animal Experiments Inspectorate and some animal protection societies
present a joint seminar every year
These seminars are open to the public
Novo Nordisk has videos of their animal housing on their homepage
Communication and transparency is needed to maintain public trust
The general public tend to have three different stances on animal use
Disapprovers say all sentient animals have rights that must not be denied
Approvers say that human interests are more important than the interest of animals, no
matter the cost to the animals
Approvers with reservations say harms and benefits must be balanced and animal
suffering is not to be ignored
Disapprovers usually represent the ethical position called the Animal Rights View
Animal Rights View says:
Sentient beings should not be used as tools
Good results cannot justify evil means (i.e. you cannot justify abusing other sentient
beings)
Based on the principle that all humans have equal worth and the right to be treated
with respect
People who take the animal rights view argue that it isn’t possible to find a single
criteria for moral exclusion of sentient animals which excludes all humans
E.g. the ability to communicate with a spoken language would exclude animals but
also excludes infants or people with brain injuries
E.g. intelligence could be used as a criteria but this would be difficult to measure
and an animal could be considered more intelligent than a person with a brain injury
Approvers usually believe in contractarianism
They believe that as long as society allows it, there is no problem using animals
experimentally
Contractarianism is described as morality based on agreement
Their main objective is to optimize their own life conditions and welfare
The agreement is established between rational persons that can negotiate an argument
These people need to have good social relations so they acknowledge that animal
welfare matters to other moral agents
They accept assigning rights to animals because it matters to others
If an individual can’t negotiate for themselves, contractarians don’t believe the
individual has any rights
Therefore animals and newborn babies wouldn’t have any ethical rights unless a
rational person negotiates on their behalf
Approvers with reservations usually have the utilitarianism ethical view
They are often concerned about the suffering of animal and that the animal suffering
should be balanced with the benefits of the experiment
Uses the principle that you should create as much happiness as possible no matter the
actions needed for doing this
Utilitarians believe that it is acceptable to sacrifice one or more individuals for the
benefit of others
, Utilitarians focus on the consequences of their actions whereas animal rights people
focus on the moral actions instead of their consequences
Utilitarianism believes that all suffering (including animal suffering) should be reduced
to the highest extent
The Danish Legislation on experimental animals combines the utilitarian position with
some Animal Rights Ethics views
Animal experimentation must be of essential benefit and this benefit must
counterbalance harm to the animals
However animals must not experience strong pain, intense suffering or intense fear and
must be killed if the condition continues once anesthesia is removed
The EU directive (and therefore other EU countries) can give individual experiments the
right to treat animals like this but this is not possible in Denmark
To assess animal welfare we need to decide on what we want to measure
This means we need to make a distinction between the nature of something and how to
measure it
There are three different definitions of welfare
Animal Welfare- The animals state of health and biological functioning
Animal welfare can be thought of the animal being in good health
Clinical exams and physiological parameters can be measured to check if the animal
is healthy
Statistical parameters such as mortality rate can also be used to decide if the
animal is healthy
Philosophers argue that these scientific parameters aren’t enough
Natural living- states that animal welfare is when the animal displays its natural
behavior and emotions
Philosophers believe that in order to have a high level of welfare you must fulfil
species specific potentials (i.e. fulfil ones “purpose”)
This means that to have welfare, you must be able to do things you want to (i.e. a
pig might want to build a nest to be fulfilled)
Nest building in mice and food hoarding in rats should be allowed according to the
animal welfare definition
Emotions and preference- Welfare is the presence of positive mental states and the
absence of negative mental states
This view accepts animals can feel emotions
The more you do what you want to do, get what you want and avoid what you don’t
want to do the better your welfare
There can be different solutions to animal welfare problems depending on which definition
of animal welfare we use
E.g if a dog feels anxious and stressed when left alone we could say it is not able to
show species specific behaviors (Natural Living) or that negative emotions are the
reason for the anxiety (Emotions and Preference)
If we say natural living is the cause of the problem, then the dog would need to be sent
to a dog group or left with somebody
If we say that emotions and preference is the cause of the anxiety then a vet could
prescribe an anti-anxiety medication
The five freedoms- mix of factors such as physiological, health related, emotional and
behavioural factors that affect the level of welfare in animals
Considered a guide on how on avoid animal suffering
Published by the British Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) in 1979
FAWC was renamed to the animal welfare committee (AWC) in 2019
Freedom from hunger and thirst- by ready access to water and a diet to maintain health
and vigour
Freedom from discomfort- by providing an appropriate environment
Freedom from pain, injury and disease- by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment
Animal Ethics describes and discusses different views on how animals ought to be treated
in our care
Animal ethics has developed over time
Previously it was allowed to strap live animals to a table and observe their organs in
vivo
Now with anesthetics and and analgesics this wouldn’t be allowed
The EU directive states that public concern should be addressed by treating animals as
sentient beings and restrict their use as much as possible
Scientists working with animals should make their ethical principles for handling and
using animals accessible to the public
In Denmark the Animal Experiments Inspectorate and some animal protection societies
present a joint seminar every year
These seminars are open to the public
Novo Nordisk has videos of their animal housing on their homepage
Communication and transparency is needed to maintain public trust
The general public tend to have three different stances on animal use
Disapprovers say all sentient animals have rights that must not be denied
Approvers say that human interests are more important than the interest of animals, no
matter the cost to the animals
Approvers with reservations say harms and benefits must be balanced and animal
suffering is not to be ignored
Disapprovers usually represent the ethical position called the Animal Rights View
Animal Rights View says:
Sentient beings should not be used as tools
Good results cannot justify evil means (i.e. you cannot justify abusing other sentient
beings)
Based on the principle that all humans have equal worth and the right to be treated
with respect
People who take the animal rights view argue that it isn’t possible to find a single
criteria for moral exclusion of sentient animals which excludes all humans
E.g. the ability to communicate with a spoken language would exclude animals but
also excludes infants or people with brain injuries
E.g. intelligence could be used as a criteria but this would be difficult to measure
and an animal could be considered more intelligent than a person with a brain injury
Approvers usually believe in contractarianism
They believe that as long as society allows it, there is no problem using animals
experimentally
Contractarianism is described as morality based on agreement
Their main objective is to optimize their own life conditions and welfare
The agreement is established between rational persons that can negotiate an argument
These people need to have good social relations so they acknowledge that animal
welfare matters to other moral agents
They accept assigning rights to animals because it matters to others
If an individual can’t negotiate for themselves, contractarians don’t believe the
individual has any rights
Therefore animals and newborn babies wouldn’t have any ethical rights unless a
rational person negotiates on their behalf
Approvers with reservations usually have the utilitarianism ethical view
They are often concerned about the suffering of animal and that the animal suffering
should be balanced with the benefits of the experiment
Uses the principle that you should create as much happiness as possible no matter the
actions needed for doing this
Utilitarians believe that it is acceptable to sacrifice one or more individuals for the
benefit of others
, Utilitarians focus on the consequences of their actions whereas animal rights people
focus on the moral actions instead of their consequences
Utilitarianism believes that all suffering (including animal suffering) should be reduced
to the highest extent
The Danish Legislation on experimental animals combines the utilitarian position with
some Animal Rights Ethics views
Animal experimentation must be of essential benefit and this benefit must
counterbalance harm to the animals
However animals must not experience strong pain, intense suffering or intense fear and
must be killed if the condition continues once anesthesia is removed
The EU directive (and therefore other EU countries) can give individual experiments the
right to treat animals like this but this is not possible in Denmark
To assess animal welfare we need to decide on what we want to measure
This means we need to make a distinction between the nature of something and how to
measure it
There are three different definitions of welfare
Animal Welfare- The animals state of health and biological functioning
Animal welfare can be thought of the animal being in good health
Clinical exams and physiological parameters can be measured to check if the animal
is healthy
Statistical parameters such as mortality rate can also be used to decide if the
animal is healthy
Philosophers argue that these scientific parameters aren’t enough
Natural living- states that animal welfare is when the animal displays its natural
behavior and emotions
Philosophers believe that in order to have a high level of welfare you must fulfil
species specific potentials (i.e. fulfil ones “purpose”)
This means that to have welfare, you must be able to do things you want to (i.e. a
pig might want to build a nest to be fulfilled)
Nest building in mice and food hoarding in rats should be allowed according to the
animal welfare definition
Emotions and preference- Welfare is the presence of positive mental states and the
absence of negative mental states
This view accepts animals can feel emotions
The more you do what you want to do, get what you want and avoid what you don’t
want to do the better your welfare
There can be different solutions to animal welfare problems depending on which definition
of animal welfare we use
E.g if a dog feels anxious and stressed when left alone we could say it is not able to
show species specific behaviors (Natural Living) or that negative emotions are the
reason for the anxiety (Emotions and Preference)
If we say natural living is the cause of the problem, then the dog would need to be sent
to a dog group or left with somebody
If we say that emotions and preference is the cause of the anxiety then a vet could
prescribe an anti-anxiety medication
The five freedoms- mix of factors such as physiological, health related, emotional and
behavioural factors that affect the level of welfare in animals
Considered a guide on how on avoid animal suffering
Published by the British Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) in 1979
FAWC was renamed to the animal welfare committee (AWC) in 2019
Freedom from hunger and thirst- by ready access to water and a diet to maintain health
and vigour
Freedom from discomfort- by providing an appropriate environment
Freedom from pain, injury and disease- by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment
