Animal Rights Movement Must Shed Its "Animal Welfare" Theory
Animal welfare—the notion that we should treat animals “humanely”—has been around for 200 years. It has gotten nowhere. We are using more animals now in more horrific ways than at any time in human history.
The 19th century founders of animal welfare opposed human slavery but they never opposed the property status of animals because they thought that although animals could suffer, they had no interest in their lives. That is, animals do not care that we use them but only care about how we use them. According to the welfarists, animals are not self-aware and do not have an interest in continuing to live; they only have an interest in not suffering a painful death.
So the welfarists of the 19th century did not advocate the abolition of animal slavery as they advocated the abolition of human slavery. Instead, they advocated that we have laws that require the “humane” treatment of animals.
What the welfarists did not realize, however, was that as long as animals remained property, the level of protection provided by these laws would necessarily remain very low because it costs money to protect animal interests. As a general matter, we will spend that money and protect those interests only when it results in an economic benefit for us.
Nothing has changed.
The welfarists of the 21st century still maintain that animals do not have an interest in their lives and that killing them does not itself raise a moral problem. Peter Singer, who is the modern proponent of the welfarist theory of the 19th century, states this explicitly. This view that animals have no interest in continued life explains why PETA has no problem with killing 90% of the animals it rescues. For the welfarists, death is not itself a “harm.”
And, for the most part, animal welfare regulations only improve the economic efficiency of animal exploitation. In other words, we protect animal interests only when we get an economic benefit. Animal welfare campaigns, such as the campaign for the controlled-atmosphere killing/stunning of poultry, or the elimination of the gestation crate are based explicitly on economic efficiency. That is, these reforms are promoted on the ground that they will improve production efficiency.
After 200 years of a doctrine that is speciesist (nonhuman animal life itself has no moral value) and that has demonstrated that it is useless as a practical matter, it is time for a change.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
You don't get rights until you can handle responsibilities. Our responsibilities are written out into laws we must obey or we lose our freedom. How would you deal with an animal that killed another animal. Animal need to be taken care of when in a humans domain. PeTa does not equal animal welfare.
What does PeTA have to do with this? Anyways, children don't have responsibilities yet they are provided rights. People in comas don't have responsibilities but they also have rights.
I think the issue here is not that some animals deserve legal protection (rights) from other animals, but that all animals should be afforded protection from humans (we choose to kill and exploit other animals; animals don't or can't choose) who wish to exploit or oppress them.
Humans, being "morally superior", shouldn't have the right to exploit, or inflict unnecessary suffering and death, on any sentient creatures, including animals or even aliens, if they ever come to visit us.
(the alien part was a joke)
1st THE peTa comment. If you read the article it stated welfare groups like Peta--- they are not a welfare group.
YES, we do have homes for children who can't behave-- we have hospitals for those children who aren't right in the head AND we have HUMAN beings in charge of young children who can't be responosible for THEMSELVES. THERE are humans who take responsibility for those who can't.
First, you're right about PeTA, I'd forgotten about that.
Second, if children can have rights without responsibilities, why can't animals have rights without responsibilities?
By your own logic, if I take responsibility for an animal (who cannot take responsibility), then that animal (that I'm in charge of) qualifies for rights.
Am I reading you correctly?
CHILDREN only have limited rights-- they can't drive, smoke, drink, sign any contract until they have reached their majority. ALL children are their parent/guardians responsibilities. Same with a disabled, or mentally unstable person. Someone (a human) has to be held reliable and responsible.
Kids can be put in juvenile prisons -- so limited rights and limited responsibilities.
I think we'd both agree that, even though children may have "limited" rights, they would be protected from forced organ donation, Draize tests, being put on display in a zoo, not to mention being slaughtered for food . In other words, that we don't have the right to use and abuse children because they only have limited rights.
Although I don't know anyone who is advocating for animals to have the right to vote or have abortions, I do believe they should also be protected from the above violations and acts of violence and exploitation; they should be afforded basic rights that protect them from human use and abuse.
IF we free all the animals -- Total animal liberation-- none for pets , food , clothing-- IF we turn back the way the world has evolved for thousands of years. What do you think the animals will do??? Will they respect each others right to life? Will the lion become a vegan in his acceptance of the new world order. OR are things the way they are NOW for a reason. One animal is born,lives, eats and dies so others can go on. There are animals that eat their young, breed with their young in order to survive in the wild. The real world isn't utopia for animals.
Living in a glass cage, safe from my enemies -getting room service and my needs met (a zoo) doesn't sound like the worst thing in the world.
Dear Sonbear,
We wouldn't be "liberating" those who have already been bred to need our care/companionship. We also wouldn't be breeding generation upon generation of " pets " in such an uncontrolled way. Those animals who are wild would stay wild -- and have the "right" to not have their habitat stolen from them!
As for your point about animals eating one another: I believe that animals LEARN to love and to respect every individual, whether human or nonhuman, in proportion as we humans learn the same lesson. And we can learn the same from them. In fact, we are here to learn from one another, to give to one another, not to take from one another. Animals' thoughts and acts are influenced by our thoughts and acts, because we are the ones granted "dominion" (that is, the moral and some would say divine authority to do right by all "creation," including other humans). It's true we've seen mostly animal-eating-animal in the wild, but there have been exceptions to that "rule" within predatory species, leading me to the conclusion that they want to find a way to survive without killing another. (Their moral sense responds to our recognition of their morality and to our own practice of morality.)
If you choose to see life as a material cycle of birth, predation and death, you miss the real purpose of life. I believe life is all about learning to love, to not harm. This is a spiritual mandate. When we see life in its true, spiritual depict, we see ourselves and others as valuable in a way that's far beyond economic value. As whole, innocent, free, harmonious, at peace. We have a choice: we can see life as limited, mortal, material, good-and-evil, or we can see it as unlimited, immortal, spiritual, only good, and full of love. I choose the latter.
As for "room service" at zoos , I suppose one could say the same about human slaves who are fed "free" food and given a "free" bed in "payment" for forced labor . In the animals' case, it is for forced entertainment purposes or forced educational purposes or forced breed-so-the-species-won't-die-out purposes. The real purpose, in both cases, is the money made by the slave-keepers.
We all, humans and nonhumans, have the God-given right and innate desire to be free, mentally and physically, from another's domination (the counterfeit of dominion). And we all have the God-given right and desire to care for one another and serve one another in love -- with no coercion or oppression involved.
Have we abandoned a rational, mature exchange of ideas? Vegan lions? Living in glass cages?
Try living in one for a while and then tell me you want more. Maybe you'd like to live the rest of your life in prison? Why not? You get three squares a day, don't have to pay room and board, lot's of time to read and watch TV.
Not the worst thing in the world, right? Only you don't have your freedom or control over your own life. Sounds like a picnic!
You seem to think the animals living in our society are in worse shape than if they were free. The raccoon lying dead in the street may disagree with you.
What do you want the lion to eat?
Living in a war zone (the natural animal kingdom) or in a zoo?? Which would you choose. Again, I am sure the raccoon 'sleeping' in the street would have preferred a zoo. So would her babies who refused to leave her and were also killed.