Physical integrity, well-being and animal rights

Promote animal welfare or give animals rights?

Welfare versus rights

Talking about the welfare or well-being of animals is easier than talking about (the feasibility of) animal rights. Rights are more abstract than the violation of welfare. We would have come a long way if the welfare of animals kept by humans were no longer threatened. The free-market economy makes the situation in livestock farming difficult. What exactly is the relationship between business management and animal welfare? Can a farmer be obliged to invest more than is reflected in the well-being of his animals? The life cycle of many animals in livestock farming is so short that some violations of their well-being are not clearly expressed in the behavior of the young animals.

Animal Freedom argues that animals are entitled to the freedom to behave naturally. Taking this legal principle as a starting point has the advantage that the situation of any animal can be assessed at a glance, whereas thinking in terms of preventing poor welfare takes much more time to arrive at an assessment. Thinking in terms of promoting animal welfare takes even more time.

Which rights are withheld from farm animals?

Keeping an animal as livestock or as a pet is in principle a violation of its rights. But how bad is this? Before we try to formulate an answer, we start with the question: what is being withheld from a farm animal or a pet?

A farm animal is restricted in its freedom of movement, cannot reproduce as it wishes and is slaughtered and eaten at a (relatively) young age. In theory this can be done (even on a large scale) without harming the animal's welfare (assuming the animal is unconscious when it is slaughtered).

It is not so hard to establish what threatens the welfare of animals; it is far more difficult to establish what promotes their well-being. People are not obliged to promote each other's well-being. At best there are rules to protect human well-being. People are expected to look after their own well-being (and to know how to do so). People are not obliged to promote the well-being of animals either, but (when) are animals kept by people able to look after their own well-being?

Physical integrity

Animals have tails, teeth (beaks) and reproductive organs. Sometimes these are removed or sterilized. Being allowed to keep these physical functions falls under the right to physical integrity. But does this right fall under animal rights?

Tail docking in pigs

In the case of piglets in factory farming, their tails are docked to promote their well-being. That seems odd. And it is, because these young animals suffer pain when their tails are cut off. Industrial pig farmers do this because the older animals get bored in their barren surroundings and bite each other's tails. That causes more pain than docking does. Does this make the procedure legitimate? And does it harm or promote their well-being?

The answer depends on which living conditions one considers legitimate for the animals.

Natural conditions as a solution

In organic pig farming, where animals have enough space and natural distractions and are able to root, the pigs hardly get bored and do not bite each other's tails.

The beaks of barn hens are trimmed because the numbers in the organic sector are too large to prevent the chickens from pecking each other. To prevent this, further welfare measures have to be taken, as is done in biodynamic farming. There the flocks are small and the chickens have lots of room. They can establish their pecking order in a natural way and hardly peck each other harmfully.

Selection or genetic modification can have some influence on aggressive behavior, but more natural housing has a much greater effect on animal well-being. In spacious and natural housing it is not necessary to violate the physical integrity of animals. However, both the desire to export and the large livestock population make it impossible to make these welfare conditions common practice.

The animal keeper's duty of care

By keeping an animal in relative captivity, the keeper takes on a duty of care. This duty of care means that the animal's need for safety is met at the very least. The animal must also be given the opportunity to behave as naturally as possible. The animal is hungry and thirsty, wants safety and shelter and sometimes the company of its own kind. Together with the absence of disease and other discomfort, meeting these needs makes up the five "freedoms" to which animals are entitled.

The five freedoms first of all guarantee that welfare is not harmed. But do they also promote the animal's welfare? Or does it cost too much (time, money and space) to do more for an animal?

Reproduction and castration

Does the ability to reproduce also fall under animal rights or physical integrity?

Welfare is at stake (without the animal being aware of it) when it is sterilized or castrated. The procedure itself can be carried out without pain (but in intensive pig farming it is done without anesthesia in an extremely painful way!). Nevertheless, it is possible to prevent an animal from reproducing without seriously harming its welfare. The question remains whether this is a violation of animal rights.

One answer could be: yes, but it is not a matter of life and death, as eating animals from factory farming is. This brings us back to another message of Animal Freedom: if we no longer eat animals from factory farming, the number of farm animals will become much smaller. In many cases all the dilemmas and abuses mentioned above will then be avoided automatically.

Conclusion: freedom as a fundamental right

By accepting freedom as the fundamental right on which animal rights are based, most welfare measures are automatically included.

See also: Farmer, consumer and biotechnology.