Translating Ethical Principles into Law, Regulations and Workable Animal Welfare Practices

The ethical theories considered in this commentary include Anthropocentrism, Dominionism, Utilitarianism, Reverence for Life, Animal Rights, Biocentrism, Ecocentrism and Care Ethics. It is apparent that Utilitarianism provides a motivating rationale for devising legal instruments to manage animal welfare in many countries. The emphasis of different laws spanning many decades paralleled the trajectory of changing attitudes to animals. Initial laws focussed on serious abuse, and were enacted to deal with relative indifference to animal suffering. Anticruelty laws followed; they dealt with a wider range of noxious acts that also cause suffering. Animal Protection laws accommodated a growing acceptance that much less severe, yet still very unpleasant experiences, are of significant welfare concern. These laws and their amendments, plus the associated instruments (e.g., Codes of Welfare/Practice), were increasingly couched using animal welfare terminology. Finally, contemporary laws that focus directly to animal welfare, increasingly refer to a ‘duty of care’ towards animals, entailing responsibilities to minimise negative experiences and to promote positive ones. Outlined here is an example of an ethically-based legal structure for providing guidance and outlining requirements for animal welfare management nationally. It has four interacting levels: Level 1—Law; Level 2—Codes of Welfare/Practice; Level 3—Regulations; and Level 4—Cooperation at a National Level. It is noted that although the framing of this legal structure is based on ethical principles, the expression of those principles is more implicit than explicit. However, expression of the ethical principles can be made much more explicit when putting into effect legal requirements to assess the acceptability of different practices in animal welfare terms. There are four interacting steps in this process: Step 1—the Primary Assumption: Animals have intrinsic value and an interest in having good lives. Step 2—Distribution of Responsibility: Humans usually control human-animal interactions and have an overarching responsibility to operate two principles: (1) If in doubt err on the side of the animal; (2) If there are justified concerns, a lack of evidence can never in itself justify a practice. Step 3—Assessment of Impact on the Animals: Use a structured framework to assess the impact of human-initiated activities. The Five Domains Model is suggested as a suitable device for this. Step 4—Rigorous Evaluation: the aim, to choose the least noxious intervention as required by the Principle of Proportionality which, once chosen, supports a justification to proceed. This commentary provides examples of how ethical reasoning, and its operational consequences, can be made visible at every stage of developing, introducing and operating infrastructures for managing animal welfare nationally.