对动物“所有权”态度的转变:福利研究和实践术语的伦理含义

IF 2.1 Q2 ETHICS
Julia Henning, Ana Goncalves Costa, E. Fernandez
{"title":"对动物“所有权”态度的转变:福利研究和实践术语的伦理含义","authors":"Julia Henning, Ana Goncalves Costa, E. Fernandez","doi":"10.1177/17470161231186060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The roles companion animals have played in our lives has dramatically changed over the last few decades. At the same time, the terms we use to describe both the people and animals in these human-animal relationships have also changed. One example includes the use of the terms ‘owner’ or ‘guardian’ to refer to the human caretaker. While preferences by society appear to indicate increased interest in referring to companion animal caretakers as ‘guardians’, others have cautioned against its use or attempted to restrict it. Additionally, the use of animal welfare terminology has direct implications for how we conduct both welfare research and practice. Our paper examines the use of ‘owner’ and ‘guardian’ with respect to (1) the implications for changing terminology on the function, clarity and uniformity of their use, and (2) the ethical and welfare impact that coincides with each term’s use. Our goal is to propose terminological considerations that could influence future welfare research, as well as help guide our interactions with companion animals.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"49 1","pages":"409 - 418"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Shifting attitudes on animal ‘ownership’: Ethical implications for welfare research and practice terminology\",\"authors\":\"Julia Henning, Ana Goncalves Costa, E. Fernandez\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17470161231186060\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The roles companion animals have played in our lives has dramatically changed over the last few decades. At the same time, the terms we use to describe both the people and animals in these human-animal relationships have also changed. One example includes the use of the terms ‘owner’ or ‘guardian’ to refer to the human caretaker. While preferences by society appear to indicate increased interest in referring to companion animal caretakers as ‘guardians’, others have cautioned against its use or attempted to restrict it. Additionally, the use of animal welfare terminology has direct implications for how we conduct both welfare research and practice. Our paper examines the use of ‘owner’ and ‘guardian’ with respect to (1) the implications for changing terminology on the function, clarity and uniformity of their use, and (2) the ethical and welfare impact that coincides with each term’s use. Our goal is to propose terminological considerations that could influence future welfare research, as well as help guide our interactions with companion animals.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38096,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research Ethics\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"409 - 418\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231186060\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231186060","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在过去的几十年里,伴侣动物在我们生活中扮演的角色发生了巨大的变化。与此同时,我们用来描述人与动物之间关系的术语也发生了变化。一个例子包括使用术语“所有者”或“监护人”来指代人类看护人。虽然社会的偏好似乎表明,人们对将伴侣动物的看护人称为“监护人”越来越感兴趣,但也有人警告不要使用这种称呼,或试图限制这种称呼。此外,动物福利术语的使用对我们如何进行福利研究和实践有直接的影响。我们的论文从以下方面考察了“所有者”和“监护人”的使用:(1)改变术语对其使用的功能、清晰度和统一性的影响,以及(2)每个术语的使用对道德和福利的影响。我们的目标是提出可以影响未来福利研究的术语考虑,以及帮助指导我们与伴侣动物的互动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Shifting attitudes on animal ‘ownership’: Ethical implications for welfare research and practice terminology
The roles companion animals have played in our lives has dramatically changed over the last few decades. At the same time, the terms we use to describe both the people and animals in these human-animal relationships have also changed. One example includes the use of the terms ‘owner’ or ‘guardian’ to refer to the human caretaker. While preferences by society appear to indicate increased interest in referring to companion animal caretakers as ‘guardians’, others have cautioned against its use or attempted to restrict it. Additionally, the use of animal welfare terminology has direct implications for how we conduct both welfare research and practice. Our paper examines the use of ‘owner’ and ‘guardian’ with respect to (1) the implications for changing terminology on the function, clarity and uniformity of their use, and (2) the ethical and welfare impact that coincides with each term’s use. Our goal is to propose terminological considerations that could influence future welfare research, as well as help guide our interactions with companion animals.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Research Ethics
Research Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
11.80%
发文量
17
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信