Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-wpx69 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-18T19:44:28.822Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ethical Implications of the Human-Animal Bond on the Farm

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

R Anthony
R Anthony*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA, and Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, The University of British Columbia, V6T 1Z4, Canada
*
Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Arguably, grounding animal ethics in traditional moral theories such as utilitarianism or rights-based ethics is impoverished since they emphasise impartiality and abstractness in our ethical deliberations at the expense of giving proper weight to special relationships we have with other individuals. Here, I explore the human-animal bond as a starting point for animal ethics, and focus on the resulting moral implications of this bond on farm animal welfare. The human-animal bond revisits values inherent in the nature of animal husbandry and is also influenced by philosophical ethics of caring. Farmers or stockpersons who form close bonds with their animals make an implicit promise to discharge duties to their animal companions above and beyond respectful treatment as sentient beings. Scientific study suggests that interpersonal human-animal relationships may translate to better care and consideration for farmed animals, promoting both better animal welfare and on-farm productivity. Acknowledging the existence of human-animal bonds on the farm and encouraging farmers and animal handlers not to shy away from forming bonds with their animals is recommended. Farmers, stockpersons, and contract-farmers for agribusinesses should be given an ethical voice to lodge grievances about how farmed animals are treated and be encouraged to participate in discussions on farming practices and animal welfare standards. They should also be educated on gains made through scientific enquiry regarding the capacities and needs of animals as well as on welfare advances.

Keywords

agricultural ethicsanimal welfarehuman-animal bondhuman-animal relationship
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 12 , Issue 4: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , November 2003 , pp. 505 - 512
Copyright
© 2003 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arluke, A 1988 Sacrificial symbolism in animal experimentation: object or pet? Anthrozoos 2: 98–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arluke, A 1990 Uneasiness among laboratory technicians. Lab Animal 19: 20–39Google Scholar
Baier, A 1985 Knowing our place in the animal world. In: Postures of the Mind pp 139–156. University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, USAGoogle Scholar
BBC News TALKINGPOINT/Foot-and-mouth: How is it affecting your life? http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/hi/English/talking_point/newsid/1238000/1238739.stm (4/6/01)Google Scholar
Beck, A and Katcher, A 1996 Between Pets and People, Edn 2. Purdue University Press: West Lafayette, USAGoogle Scholar
Boivin, X, Lensink, B J and Veissier, I 2001 The farmer and the animal: a double mirror. In: Hovi M and Bouilhol M (eds) Human-Animal Relationships: Stockmanship and Housing in Organic Livestock Systems. Proceedings of the 3rd NAHWOA Workshop pp 7-15. October 21-24, 2000, Clermont-Ferrand, France. University of Reading, UK. Also available at http://www.veeru.reading.ac.uk/organic/ProceedingsFINAL.pdfGoogle Scholar
Burgess-Jackson, K 1998 Doing right by our animal companions. Journal of Ethics 2: 159–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, M 1994 Beyond the terms of the contract: mothers and farmers. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7: 205–220Google Scholar
Cottingham, J 1986 Partiality, favouritism and morality. Philosophical Quarterly 36(144): 357–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, H and Balfour, D (eds) 1992 The Inevitable Bond: Examining Scientist-Animal Interactions. Cambridge University Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
DeGrazia, D 1996 Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Life and Moral Status. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, R 1980 Interests and Rights: The Case Against Animal Rights. Clarendon Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 1999 Animal ethics and animal welfare science: bridging the two cultures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 65: 171–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 2001a Farm animal production: changing agriculture in a changing culture. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 4: 175–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D 2001b The “New Perception” of animal agriculture: legless cows, featherless chicken, and a need for genuine analysis. Journal of Animal Science 79: 634–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilligan, C 1982 In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
Hemsworth, P H and Coleman, G J (eds) 1998 Human-Livestock Interaction: The Stockperson and the Productivity and Welfare of Intensively Farmed Animals. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Larrère, C and Larrère, R 2000 Animal rearing as a contract? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12: 51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehman, H 1992 Scientist-animal bonding: some philosophical reflections. In: Davis, H and Balfour, D (eds) The Inevitable Bond: Examining Scientist-Animal Interactions pp 383–396. Cambridge University Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Midgley, M 1983 Animals and Why They Matter. University of Georgia Press: Athens, GreeceGoogle Scholar
Noddings, N 1984 Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. University of California Press: Berkeley, USAGoogle Scholar
Preece, R and Chamberlain, L 1995 Animal Welfare and Human Values. Wilfred Laurier University Press: Waterloo, CanadaGoogle Scholar
Preece, R and Fraser, D 2000 The status of animals in biblical and Christian thought: a study in colliding values. Society & Animals 8: 245–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regan, T 1983 The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press: Berkeley, USAGoogle Scholar
Regan, T 2001 Defending Animal Rights. University of Illinois Press: Urbana, USAGoogle Scholar
Rollin, B E 1992 Animal Rights and Human Morality. Prometheus Books: Buffalo, USAGoogle Scholar
Russow, L-M 1999 Bioethics, animal research, and ethical theory. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research Journal 40: 15–21Google ScholarPubMed
Russow, L-M 2002 Ethical implications of the human-animal bond in the laboratory. Institute for Laboratory Animal Research Journal 43: 33–37Google ScholarPubMed
Seabrook, M F 1972 A study of the influence of the cowman's personality and job satisfaction on milk yield. Journal of Agricultural Labour Science 1: 79–93Google Scholar
Seabrook, M F and Mount, N C 1993 Good stockmanship — good for animals, good for profit. Journal of the Royal Agriculture Society of England 154: 104–115Google Scholar
Singer, P 1975 Animal Liberation, Edn 1. Avon Books: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Singer, P 1990 Animal Liberation, Edn 2. Avon Books: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Singer, P 1993 Practical Ethics, Edn 2. Cambridge University: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Steinbock, B 1978 In defense of speciesism. Philosophy 53: 247–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, P B 1997 Agrarian values: their future place in US agriculture. In: Lockeretz, W (ed) Visions of American Agriculture pp 17–30. Iowa State University Press: Ames, IA, USAGoogle Scholar
Varner, G 2002 Pets, companion animals, and other domestic partners. In: Bernatar, E (ed) Ethics for Everyday pp 450–475. McGraw-Hill: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
Warren, M A 1987 Difficulties with the strong animal rights position. Between the Species 2: 433–441Google Scholar