I’ve been a vegan for a little over 13 years now and I have assiduously avoided the Animal Rights (or “AR”) movement. However, when I found out about a free class on Animal Rights philosophy (through the Boston Vegan Association), I thought it was about time that I learned a little about the ideological cousin of Veganism.
I entitled this post “Animal Right” because in the end, I learned that Animal Rights is really about one “right” which is the right to not be property. This is a basic right that is of primary necessity in order for any being to have any other rights (for example, if you were property of another being, then you could not really have a right to property of your own, because your owner could always confiscate it; likewise, you could not have a right to physical safety because your owner would be able to hit or kill you if it suited him/her) – this is because in our legal system, property ownership is paramount.
During the course of my readings, I was surprised to learn that there are several different competing ideologies:
- Traditional Animal Welfare (aka “Traditional Welfarism”) – this philosophy says that we must care for the nohas (non-human animals) that we are using and ensure that there is no “unnecessary” suffering. This was the first widespread movement for legal protections for nohas and became popular in Europe in the 1800s (although it was part of non-European religious traditions such as Hinduism long before that), partially due to the philosophies of Jeremy Bentham who argued that our treatment of other beings should not be based on whether they can reason, but whether they can suffer. He was also the grandfather of utilitarianism (but as he thought killing nohas for food or otherwise using as resources with “minimum” suffering was perfectly acceptable, he was himself more of a traditional welfarist).
- Utilitarianism (a form of “New Welfarism”) – this philosophy says that we must reject speciesism (the favoring of any species over another) and use the principal of equal consideration to determine what is the maximum positive outcome for all. This philosophy does not explicitly state that we may not use nohas as resources (i.e., it is not a “rights” theory), but neither does it saythat we should use them as resources (i.e., it is not traditional welfarism), only that we consider all perspectives in order to best maximize utility. Peter Singer is the most well-known modern proponent of this theory. Utilitarians generally support any measure to “minimize” suffering and thus it is akin to Traditional Animal Welfare (and called “New Welfarism” by most Abolitionists).
- Rights-Welfarism (a form of “New Welfarism”) – this philosophy says that at least some nohas have a basic right not to be treated purely as resources (i.e., we should cease most/all noha exploitation), but that traditional welfare methods (i.e., laws to “minimize” noha suffering or ensure “humane” treatment of noha resources) will eventually lead us to this goal (thus it is akin to Traditional Animal Welfare theory and called “New Welfarism” by most Abolitionists). Ingrid Newkirk (co-founder of PETA) is a well-known proponent of this theory. Rights-Welfarists generally consider themselves to be “Animal Rights” advocates, as that is their end goal.
- Abolitionism – this philosophy says that nohas have a basic right not to be treated as property and that all noha exploitation should cease. The methods employed are primarily abstention of noha products and education of others (i.e., adopting and advocating the vegan lifestyle). Although certain kinds of legal changes might be supported, such measures must constitute some kind of step towards abolition (i.e., a clear prohibition of a practice or industry that in no way justifies or reinforces noha usage in that industry). The most well-known proponent of this theory is Gary Francione.
As I understand it, the majority of so-called “Animal Rights” advocates are actually New Welfarists (Utilitarians and Rights-Welfarists) who tend to cooperate with Traditional Welfarists (who also sometimes get called “Animal Rights” activists, even though they do not believe in any “rights” for nohas) on various legal reform initiatives as well as some efforts to educate the public on “inhumane” practices in noha exploitation industries.
In reality, there are two pro-noha movements: the “Animal Welfare” movement and the “Animal Rights” movement. Any educational or legal measure that advocates for better treatment of nohas without challenging the human “right” to use those nohas as resources and without clearly abolishing an animal exploitation practice is an “Animal Welfare” measure. For example, the recent CA Proposition 2 ballot initiative (“Standards for Confining Animals”) limits the ability for agribusiness to confine certain animals in cages so small they cannot turn around in (to less than half the day, with certain exceptions where longer confinement in such conditions is allowable) , but does not actually abolish this practice nor challenge the right of agribusiness to use or even to confine these animals.
I think the Welfarist is strategy is flawed in several ways: 1. Any measure using subjective language such as “humane” (or based purely on the intent of a person, such as “cruelty”) is so wishy-washy as to be effectively useless (and virtually unenforceable, as long as abuses occur within the range of standard practices) and 2. broad-based support for any and every such welfare approach does not take into account that some measures are superior to others and betrays a lack of critical analysis (this latter item only applies to New Welfarists as Traditional Welfarists have no end goal other than the amorphous “reduction” of suffering).
Welfarists tend to criticize Abolitionists for being “idealist” and “unrealistic.” Welfarists often claim that they care about the nohas alive today and Abolitionists are caring only about nohas in some faraway future. This is disingenuous, however, because no noha welfare reform is only slightly less idealistic and far-off: keep in mind that it takes many years to build a movement and get legislation drawn up, voted on and passed (often in a compromised form), in addition to the fact that many such reforms do not take effect for years after passing, so most nohas alive when reform process began are long dead by the time it takes effect. Welfare reforms are also problematic in that they are seldom and inconsistently enforced (especially any reform using subjective language) and that in some cases, they reinforce the property paradigm (by insisting we take better care of the nohas we use, without ever suggesting that we should not use them). On the other hand, vegan education (the Abolitionist method) could be effective in a much quicker manner.
I agree that abolition of institutionalized noha exploitation is idealistic and not achievable in the short-term future, but that Abolitionist methodology is much more strategically effective than New Welfarist methods. However, I think the goal of abolition has some serious flaws to consider (which is a problem for Rights-Welfarists as well). Even though the theory does purport to address the issues of accidents and domestic nohas (i.e., we should allow for accidents and take care of the domestics we have without causing more to come into existence), it doesn’t really have a good answer for either of these. How should we prevent the intentional killing of nohas for sport, food or other usage without overwhelming the legal system with cases of accidents (as nohas will inevitably continue to be victims of accidents, especially with machines)? Also, how could we care for existing domestics if the noha exploitation industry were defunct? This latter is especially a problem for feeding carnivores (like cats and reptiles), but may also affect other domestic noha products (which would soon be unavailable if no new domestics were being produced). Neither of these problems would seem to be of major concern for the short-term future, however.
There is much more to these theories of course, but I wanted to try to summarize what I learned. For more on Abolitionism, you can check out Gary Francione’s blog, The Abolitionist Approach (or his books, starting with “An Introduction to Animal Rights: Your child or the dog?”). For other viewpoints and ideologies (non-Abolitionist), check out the writing of Peter Singer or Tom Regan.
Without idealists, there would be no progress.
