The Pros And Cons Of Animal Welfare

I think one ethical philosophies that can be applied to both cases is utilitarianism. Whether talking about animal rights or animal welfare, I think if you look at utilitarianism from different perspectives, it is possible to support both positions.

Proponents of animal welfare believe that it is okay to research/work with animals, as long as the proper conditions are met. According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, “animal welfare is a human responsibility that includes consideration for all aspects of animal well-being, including proper housing, management, nutrition, disease prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when necessary, humane euthanasia.” (Animal Welfare: A Human Responsibility) I think

animal welfare supporters follow the “on balance justification” view according to the book, The ethics of research involving animals. (Hepple 244) Under this view point, the argument is that all available steps must be taken to reduce the suffering that may fall on the animals in order to morally perform the research. In regards to utilitarianism, I think it is possible to apply the same thought process to animal welfare advocates. Most of the time, the purpose of animal experiments is to obtain information that will be able to help both humans and animals in the future. If you look at it from this perspective, animal welfare proponents use utilitarianism to support the idea that the research is done for the greater good of society. They recognize that research involving animals have provided breakthroughs in many different scientific areas, but it is important that these experiments are carried out in the best conditions possible.
On the other hand, animal rights activists believe that animals have fundamental rights that are equal to human rights. They believe research using animals is not justifiable, under any circumstances. A lot of the arguments against animal experimentation make use of utilitarian and abolitionist views. Utilitarianism “calls for the maximization of goodness in society, that is, the greatest food for the greatest number…” (Pojman & Fieser 102) As a result, it also calls for the minimization of suffering. I think this view supports the animal rights position because one could argue that the happiness that comes from experimenting with animals cannot outweigh the harm that is done to them. According to the book, The ethics of research involving animals, I also think the ‘abolitionist’ view can be related to the animal rights perspective. This viewpoint stats, “Since any research that causes pain, suffering and distress is wrong, there is no moral justification for harmful research on sentient animals that is not to the benefit of the animal concerned.” It goes on to say, “Since humans should not act in morally objectionable ways, every effort must be made to bring an end to all animal research as soon as possible.” (Hepple 245) These statements are in line with the belief that any type of animal research, regardless of the benefits of the end results, is wrong.
Overall, I think the same ethical philosophy of utilitarianism, if looked at from two different perspectives, can be used to support both animal welfare and animal rights. Both positions of are focused on the rights and treatment of animals, but they have different ideas about what is morally acceptable when it comes to those rights and treatment of animals.