Purchase instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Richard Haynes has argued that professionals in the animal welfare science community have appropriated the term ‘animal welfare’ to discredit the views of others. He claims that this appropriation would be illegitimate because alternative views have not received a fair hearing in policy discussions and animals have been exploited because of it. In this publication, Haynes’s critique and his alternative will be examined with the aim to address the role of professionals in discussions of animal welfare. I argue that professionals in moral philosophy have a significant role to play in discussions of the meaning and moral relevance of animal welfare, and that my own account provides a superior alternative to address moral issues in the two key areas addressed in Haynes’s work: the use of animals for biomedical science, and their use for human food.