Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorJohansson-Stenman, Olofswe
dc.date.accessioned2006-05-12swe
dc.date.accessioned2007-02-09T11:14:52Z
dc.date.available2007-02-09T11:14:52Z
dc.date.issued2006swe
dc.identifier.issn1403-2465swe
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2077/2725
dc.description.abstractThis paper discusses the standard welfare economics assumption anthropocentric welfarism, i.e. that only human well-being counts intrinsically. New survey evidence from a representative sample in Sweden is presented, indicating that anthropocentrism is strongly rejected, on average. However, most people appear to have a consequentialistic ethics, in line with conventional welfare economics. The moral philosophical literature is also briefly reviewed, and here too anthropocentrism receives little support. Indirect evidence from environmental valuation studies seems also to imply that a non-negligible fraction of people has non-welfaristic and/or non anthropocentric ethical preferences.swe
dc.format.extent28 pagesswe
dc.format.extent149529 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoenswe
dc.relation.ispartofseriesWorking Papers in Economics, nr 197swe
dc.subjectAnimal welfare; anthropocentrism; welfarism; ethics; ethical preferences; costbenefit analysisswe
dc.titleShould Animal Welfare Count?swe
dc.type.svepReportswe
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Economicsswe
dc.gup.originGöteborg University. School of Business, Economics and Lawswe
dc.gup.epcid4800swe
dc.subject.svepEconomicsswe


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record