RSS
Home
Why animal rights activists aren't supporting animal welfarism
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
.png)
In a blog entitled "HSUS' Paul Shapiro Reaches Out to Meat Industry," author Mylene Ouellet shows how some of the most popular responses to the plight of animals are, in fact, seriously detrimental to the rights and suffering of animals conversely.
A storm of back-and-forth commentary follows this article; some of which makes redundant arguments that animal welfarism should be supported because it minimizes the suffering of animals, etc.
Let me make some general observations from the article's contents and comments.
What's wrong with animal welfarism?
HSUS, like most animal welfare agencies, takes a position against cruel animal confinement and conditions which make the enslavement of animals (more) unpleasant.
Watch a few YouTube videos on subjects like "battery cages" and "gestation crates" and you'll no doubt agree these conditions are deplorable. The intuitive conclusion would be that chickens not in battery cages is better than chickens in battery cages and so on.
Let me make a point to stop here and state the abolitionist and the welfarist agrees on this generality but there's more.
For those in disagreement over this article, let me acknowledge the position taken by the abolitionist may appear counterintuitive on the surface. If someone suggests we should not legislate against battery cages, not support large animal welfare charities who state they are working to sway public opinion, and instead use those resources toward completely abolishing animal use, an advocate may feel they would be turning his or her back on the animals, that a response is not being made to the suffering of animals.
1. "Welfare reforms at least reduce the suffering of animals, if not completely abolish it"
In welfarism, attention is paid to the isolated fact that an animal is taken out of a cage, gestation crate etcetera. Their reduction in suffering is the appearance. The reality is that these reforms are often very misleading. The lauded reforms of Cali. Prop 2 had an entire list of exceptions which allowed producers to completely ignore Prop 2 when the animal was pregnant, being transported, given "vet" care, an so on. They also only account for negligible reform of the plight of animals. This is why Prof. Francione uses the metaphor of a hard electric chair versus a padded one.
2. "At least animal reform is better than nothing"
Reality: These reforms account for funds, resources, and time given by supporters of welfarism. It costs money to pay administrative fees, hire lawyers, create propaganda, google ads, whatever. These resources could otherwise be used to promote vegan education. More vegans in the world equates to fewer animals being put in the circumstance where their suffering needs attention. More importantly, vegan education creates a cultural shift where society gradually understands our usage of animals as property and the fact their suffering is a consequence of their being used as property.
3. "Welfarist regulation sends a positive message to the public about the plight of animals on factory farms"
Is this made up for by the fact the public is being educated about the suffering of animals on factory farms? The public is not being educated whatsoever by welfarism that animal exploitation necessarily leads to suffering. The public is not being shown or untrained from thinking of animals as objects of possession which exist for our use. The public is not being told it is wrong to cause any harm to an animal unless it is unnecessary to force them to create meat, milk, eggs, jackets, entertainment, labor, chemicals, research, etc.It is for these reasons we must look beyond what is immediately intuitive and what is taught to us by 6-figure salaried figures like Wayne Pacelle of the multi-million dollar Humane Society of the United States whose existence depends on public support and the donations thereof rather than any success in addressing the exploitation of animals.Related Articles:
Comments
.jpg)
