000 02199nam a22002417a 4500
003 ZW-GwMSU
005 20221117152832.0
008 221117b |||||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040 _aMSU
_cMSU
_erda
100 _aBovenkerk, Bernice
_eauthor
245 _aFish Welfare in Aquaculture: Explicating the Chain of Interactions Between Science and Ethics
_ccreated by Bernice Bovenkerk & Franck L. B. Meijboom
264 _aNetherlands
_bSpringer
_c2012
336 _2rdacontent
_atext
_btxt
337 _2rdamedia
_aunmediated
_bn
338 _2rdacarrier
_avolume
_bnc
440 _vVolume , number ,
520 _aAquaculture is the fastest growing animal-production sector in the world. This leads to the question how we should guarantee fish welfare. Implementing welfare standards presupposes that we know how to weigh, define, and measure welfare. While at first glance these seem empirical questions, they cannot be answered without ethical reflection. Normative assumptions are made when weighing, defining, and measuring welfare. Moreover, the focus on welfare presupposes that welfare is a morally important concept. This in turn presupposes that we can define the capacities of fish, which is an empirical undertaking that informs and is informed by ethical theories about the moral status of animals. In this article we want to illustrate the need for a constant interaction between empirical scientific research and ethics, in which both fields of research make their own contribution. This is not a novel claim. However, the case of fish sheds new light on this claim, because regarding fish there is still much empirical uncertainty and there is a plurality of moral views on all levels. Therefore, we do not only want to show the necessity of this interaction, but also the added value of a cooperation between ethicists and empirical scientists, such as biologists, physiologists, and ethologists. We demonstrate this by considering the different steps in the process of reflection about and implementation of fish welfare.
650 _aFish welfare
650 _aMoral status
650 _aEthics
856 _uhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-012-9395-x
942 _2lcc
_cJA
999 _c160504
_d160504