Editing Animal welfare (section)

==Attitudes==

Animal welfare often<ref name="LJK">{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TMR0Ea3d1KEC&q=animal%20welfare&pg=PP1 |title=Linda J. Keeling, Jeff Rushen and Ian Duncan. Understanding animal welfare. Animal Welfare. 2011 p. 13. edited by Michael C. Appleby, Barry O. Hughes, Joy A. Mench |access-date=3 January 2014 |isbn=978-1-78064-080-8 |last1=Appleby |first1=M. C. |last2=Mench |first2=J. A. |last3=Olsson |first3=I. A. S. |last4=Hughes |first4=B. O. |year=2011 |archive-date=17 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230117105800/https://books.google.com/books?id=TMR0Ea3d1KEC&q=animal%20welfare&pg=PP1 |url-status=live }}</ref> refers to a utilitarian attitude towards the well-being of nonhuman animals. It believes the animals can be exploited if the animal suffering and the costs of use is less than the benefits to humans.<ref name=Francione/>{{page needed|date=September 2016}}<ref name="MB">{{cite web|last=Bekoff |first=Marc |url=http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/200909/animal-emotions-animal-sentience-animal-welfare-and-animal-rights |title=Animal Emotions, Animal Sentience, Animal Welfare, and Animal Rights. Marc Bekoff |publisher=Psychologytoday.com |date=24 September 2009 |access-date=3 January 2014}}</ref> This attitude is also known simply as ''welfarism''.

An example of welfarist thought is [[Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall]]'s meat manifesto.<ref name="Meat and right">{{cite web|last=Fearnley-Whittingstall|first=Hugh|author-link=Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall|year=2009|title=My meat manifesto|url=http://www.culinate.com/books/book_excerpts/The+River+Cottage+Meat+Book|access-date=21 October 2013|archive-date=21 October 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131021172521/http://www.culinate.com/books/book_excerpts/The+River+Cottage+Meat+Book|url-status=live}}</ref> Point three of eight is:
{{Blockquote|Think about the animals that the meat you eat comes from. Are you at all concerned about how they have been treated? Have they lived well? Have they been fed on safe, appropriate foods? Have they been cared for by someone who respects them and enjoys contact with them? Would you like to be sure of that? Perhaps it's time to find out a bit more about where the meat you eat comes from. Or to buy from a source that reassures you about these points.}}

Robert Garner describes the welfarist position as the most widely held in modern society.<ref name=Garner15-16>Garner, Robert. ''Animal Ethics''. Polity Press, 2005, pp. 15–16.</ref> He states that one of the best attempts to clarify this position is given by philosopher<ref>{{Cite book|title=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|chapter=Robert Nozick's Political Philosophy|year=2018|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University|chapter-url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nozick-political/|url-status=live|access-date=18 December 2021|archive-date=10 December 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211210010345/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nozick-political/}}</ref> [[Robert Nozick]]:<ref>Garner, Robert. (2005). ''Animal Ethics''. Polity Press. p. 72</ref>

{{Blockquote|Consider the following (too minimal) position about the treatment of animals. So that we can easily refer to it, let us label this position "utilitarianism for animals, Kantianism for people." It says: (1) maximize the total happiness of all living beings; (2) place stringent side constraints on what one may do to human beings. Human beings may not be used or sacrificed for the benefit of others; animals may be used or sacrificed for the benefit of other people or animals only if those benefits are greater than the loss inflicted.<ref>{{cite book |last=Nozick |first=Robert |author-link=Robert Nozick |year=1974 |title=Anarchy, State, and Utopia |url=http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/nozick01.htm |access-date=2009-11-14 |archive-date=2011-04-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110401033419/http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/nozick01.htm |url-status=live }}</ref>}}

Welfarism is often contrasted with the [[animal rights]] and animal liberation positions, which hold that animals should not be used by humans and should not be regarded as human property.<ref name="Regan 1983"/><ref name="Francione 1995"/><ref>Garner 2005, p. 15;</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Singer|first=P.|year=1975|title=Animal Liberation|publisher=Random House}}</ref> However, it has been argued that both welfarism and animal liberation only make sense if it is assumed that animals have "subjective welfare".{{clarify|date=October 2013}}<ref>{{cite book|last=Taylor|first=A.|year=2003|title=Animals and Ethics|publisher=Broadview Press|page=88}}</ref>

===New welfarism===

New welfarism was coined by [[Gary L. Francione]] in 1996.<ref name=Francione /> It is a view that the best way to prevent animal suffering is to abolish the causes of animal suffering, but advancing animal welfare is a goal to pursue in the short term. Thus, for instance, new welfarists want to phase out fur farms and animal experiments but in the short-term they try to improve conditions for the animals in these systems, so they lobby to make cages less constrictive and to reduce the numbers of animals used in laboratories.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ar-conference.com/details.php?id=9|title=Rights theory, welfarism, and the "new welfarist" amalgamation: A critical perspective|author=De Villiers, J-H.|year=2013|access-date=20 October 2013|archive-date=10 June 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150610231645/http://www.ar-conference.com/details.php?id=9|url-status=live}}</ref>

Within the context of [[animal testing|animal research]], many scientific organisations believe that improved animal welfare will provide improved scientific outcomes. If an animal in a laboratory is suffering stress or [[pain]] it could negatively affect the results of the research.If a researcher wants to conduct an experiment, they must meet up with the 3R’s (replacement, reduction, and refinement). They must show how they’re going to put their plan into action. The ethics committee are to review the plan and check if all principles are being followed and ensure the benefits justify the harm of these animals. The 3R’s are meant to lessen the use of animals in research and lessen any suffering.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/how/the-three-Rs|title=How do we do research with animals?|publisher=Understanding Animal Research|year=2013|access-date=21 October 2013|archive-date=17 October 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131017195732/http://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/how/the-three-Rs|url-status=live}}</ref>

Increased affluence in many regions for the past few decades afforded consumers the disposable income to purchase products from high welfare systems.<ref>Phillips 2009. pp 60–63.</ref> The adaptation of more economically efficient farming systems in these regions were at the expense of animal welfare and to the financial benefit of consumers, both of which were factors in driving the demand for higher welfare for farm animals.{{clarify|date=April 2014}} A 2006 survey concluded that a majority (63%) of EU citizens "show some willingness to change their usual place of shopping in order to be able to purchase more animal welfare-friendly products."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_270_en.pdf|title=Attitudes of EU citizens towards animal welfare|author=Euroballot|publisher=European Commission|year=2007|access-date=21 October 2013|archive-date=3 November 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121103221518/http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_270_en.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>
 
The volume of scientific research on animal welfare has also increased significantly in some countries.<ref>Phillips 2009. p 60.</ref>