Defining animal welfare — does consistency matter?

Abstract

Animal welfare has many varied understandings reflecting social concerns for, and the scientific assessments of, the way animals are treated. They range from the absence of suffering, to where the animal is in a state of complete mental and physical health and in harmony with its environment, to an economic or socio-political understanding reflecting human preferences. Animal welfare thus has both empirical (scientific) and moral components. It is suggested that the term should be considered as a judgement to be undertaken by combining varied understandings. Furthermore, it may be more important to acknowledge underlying values and assumptions, both moral and scientific, than to risk excluding valid viewpoints through pursuing a prescriptive definition.

KEY WORDS:

• Animal welfare
• definitions
• science
• ethics

Acknowledgements

The Animal Welfare Group (MAF Biosecurity, New Zealand) and the NAWAC, and especially Cheryl O'Connor and Peter O'Hara, are thanked for commissioning this piece of work and providing their invaluable insights. Sarah Fisher is thanked for assistance with the manuscript.