Animal Rights: How Animal Welfarism Undermines the AR Movement

Before I became vegan I didn’t realize there was such a diversity of opinions regarding animal rights. I thought all AR activists believed that animals were not objects and had a right not to be exploited.

This was a little naive of me. Yes, many AR activists do believe in this, but there are a growing number of people who claim to be AR activists who are serving to undermine the main goal of AR activism. These people are called welfarists.

The main difference between the welfarist position and what is called the abolitionist position is that welfarists focus on the treatment of the animal rather than the use of the animal. Welfarists believe that not only is it not wrong to kill/eat animals, but because animals are not humans (i.e. they do not have minds like ours) that they are inferior to humans. And this, in turn, entitles people to use animals in whatever way they see fit (this is called speciesism, by the way). The goal of an animal welfarist is to obtain more ‘humane’ conditions for the animal during which the animal will be exploited. Basically, this is saying that more ‘humane’ exploitation is exploitation that is morally acceptable.

The author of Animal Liberation and so-called ‘father’ of the animal rights movement, Peter Singer, is a often cited by welfarists. He thinks that because animals are not ’self-aware’ then they do not care that humans are using them; but, he maintains, they (the animals) do care how we use them. So, we must treat animals as humanely as possible. The end result, according to Singer, is a so-called ‘conscientious omnivore.’(edit 3/19: It was brought to my attention that Singer was a proponent of Utilitarianism, which basically states that the greater good to the greatest number is the ideal. It should be noted that this is not an animal rights philosophy per se, but rather an ethical philosophy that sometimes extends into animal rights/advocacy)

Liken this to the idea of someone being tortured before they are murdered. Using welfarist logic, merely the act of murdering someone is more ‘humane’ and compassionate than if you had tortured them first. Or, say someone was raped. As long as they weren’t beaten up before being raped, then the act is still ‘humane’. Enter the ‘conscientious rapist’. This is completely illogical. The end result is still the same in either case.

In welfarism, what more ‘humane’ treatment often boils down to is simply a larger cage. But it is still a cage!

How does the welfarist ideology undermine animal rights? Well, for starters, animal welfarists tend to align themselves with big meat/dairy industries and become advisers to them. They assist these industries in identifying and implementing ways that they can increase their profits from exploiting animals. For example, PETA and HSUS (the Humane Society of the US) frequently use profit motive to entice industries to adopt animal welfare reforms, claiming that more humane methods will increase productivity or yield.

Why is this problematic? Because, as you can see, it does nothing to oppose the property status of animals. The language that PETA, HSUS and other animal welfare groups use only reinforces the idea that animals are economic commodities.

And people think that as long as the animals are treated better they can feel better about exploiting them as well, however indirectly. Unfortunately, this encourages people to continue using animals by making it more socially acceptable, and seems to have even increased the consumption of animals, as a result.

And while people waste their time and money on these “welfare” campaigns, less and less time and money is being spent on abolitionist campaigns. Some may argue that it is hard-assed to assume that these incremental, welfare-based changes would not lead to broader changes in animal use (i.e., a decrease in animal consumption). But time has obviously shown us that this is not the case. As I mentioned, animal consumption has actually increased over the years as welfarism has gained popularity.

And that’s not really the point, is it? If welfarists really had the welfare of the animal in mind, then their goal should be to abolish the idea that an animal is a commodity/object/product. It is obvious that welfarists feel extremely guilty about the treatment of animals that humans consume. Welfarism is their way of reconciling this guilt by saying, “It’s ok to eat this animal because it had a good life.” But this still does not have the animals’ welfare/interests as the primary concern. It has the welfare/interests of humans as the primary concern. Basically, welfarism is the answer to the question, “How can I still eat meat/dairy/eggs and wear leather/wool/fur, etc etc and still feel morally ‘ok’ about it?” This is where we get “free range”, organic, “Happy” meat.

And this is where abolitionism comes in. Abolitionists believe that animals (this includes humans) are not property and it is deemed morally wrong to treat them as such. Put in another way, abolitionists directly oppose the exploitation of all animals (including, but not limited to, exploitation in the name of human wants and desires). The goal of abolitionism is to end this exploitation. And the main vehicle for this goal? Why, veganism, of course.

I am going to quote an abolitionist, Bob Torres, author of Making a Killing, from an article he did for Satya in September of 2006, because he sums it up so nicely (my emphasis):

Veganism is living abolition in your daily life. Not only a consumptive practice, veganism is also an overt political act illustrating how the consumption and abuse of animals is unacceptable. Unlike welfarist measures, veganism is not at conflict with the ends of our movement: it is living what we want our world to be. On the up-side, welfarism turns us into advocates for people who would abuse and torture animals for profit, with the exception that these particular abusers are a bit more gentle in their abuse. Nice enslavement is still enslavement, and for all that welfarism has promised, we have little to show but more and more animals being consumed.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. Veganism is an end in itself when it comes to the abolitionist ideology. Welfarists, however, view veganism, not as an end in itself, but merely as a means to reduce the suffering of animals. I should add what welfarists don’t to that statement: Veganism is merely a means to reduce the suffering of animals to the extent that their exploitation is deemed socially and morally acceptable.

As if it weren’t obvious where I stand at this point, I’m a vegan and my veganism, my veganity if you will, is how I am protesting the common/modern view that animals are commodities or products that humans feel they are entitled to exploit. It is my opinion that humans should stop using animals altogether.

In Bob’s words, “welfarism is justifying slavery by asking for longer chains.” This does not sound like the kind of movement I want to align myself with. The focus of the animal rights movement should be on animal rights. And the most effective way that anyone can begin to affect change and benefit the animals is to become a vegan and send the message that animals are not “ours” to consume. That’s called being a ‘conscientious herbivore.’