Introduction - Killing Happy Animals: Explorations in Utilitarian Ethics - page 8

very limited. Research has shown that animals that are allowed to show
species-specific behaviour have enhanced welfare. 18 The general public
seems to agree with this. At least, people seem to have the intuitive idea
that keeping animals in more 'natural' ways is better for the animals. Thus,
animal-friendly systems provide more adequate housing with more space.
At the same time, the practice of animal husbandry as such sets practical
limits to how 'naturally' (in the sense of 'species specific') the animals can
be allowed to behave. Jan Brinkhorst, a former Dutch minister of agri-
culture, expressed the idea of granting animals more - but still limited -
options for living out their species-specific behaviour as follows:
Several square centimeters extra to grub in order to alleviate the
suffering of the poultry should no longer be only window-dressing,
good for a misleading image on the package. No, what naturally
grubs shall grub, what grazes shall graze. This will be the basic rule
number one, being aware, however, that the recreation of Eden is not
our ambition. 19
A more recent Dutch Minister of Agriculture, Gerda Verburg, also identi-
fies the option of living out 'natural behaviour' as an important compo-
nent of animal welfare. 20
The concern with animal welfare does also imply striving for a reduc-
tion of stress and pain by avoiding unnecessarily painful or stressful
treatments. It is debated what exactly counts as 'unnecessary'. A recent
discussion in this respect resulted in the (European) ban of the castra-
tion of piglets without anaesthesia. The castration routine was meant
to prevent a certain odour of the meat, but it is now considered unnec-
essary, because preventing the odour can be achieved by less painful
means. The Dutch Minister of Agriculture holds that some stress and
discomfort for the animals is unavoidable. According to her, it should
not count as bad animal welfare if animals experience stress while they
are packed for transport to the slaughterhouse. Chronic stress due to bad
housing, on the other hand, should count as bad animal welfare. She
claims: 'It does always depend on the frequency, time span and intensity
[of suffering], due to human interference and action.' 21 So, apparently,
animals with 'happy lives' are meant to be satisfied and well-off most of
the time, while their suffering should be minimized as much as possible
within the context of animal production.
The ideal of animal-friendly animal husbandry implies a remarkable
combination of moral duties towards animals. The requirement to take
an animal's welfare into account suggests that this animal counts morally.