START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
3,553,734 people care about Animal Welfare

Rights or Wrongs

Rights or Wrongs

“During the past hundred years or so, until the late 1970s, concern about animals had been limited to assuring that they were treated ‘humanely’ and that they were not subjected to ‘unnecessary’ suffering. This position, known as the animal welfare view, assumes the legitimacy of treating animals instrumentally as means to human ends as long as certain ‘safeguards’ are employed… The late 1970s and 1980s marked the emergence of the animal rights movement, which retained the animal welfare tradition’s concern for animals as sentient beings that should be protected from unnecessary cruelty but added a new language of rights as the basis for demanding the end of institutionalized animal exploitation.”
Gary L. Francione    Rain without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement

In 2010, at the turn of a new decade, there is a great deal of confusion around the issue of animal rights, especially in regard to the movement’s relationship with a much older and more established institution – animal welfare.

Unfortunately, many advocates are not familiar with the history or basic theory that underlies each of these movements, and perhaps do not completely understand the differences in philosophy between the two. As a result, animal rights and animal welfare tend to be mistakenly perceived as two sides of the same coin; two parallel roads, each leading toward the same goal of ending animal suffering.

While it may appear on the surface that these two approaches can work side by side, they are, in fact, so remarkably divergent in basic philosophy that one must conclude that they are mutually exclusive. To some, that conclusion might seem counter-intuitive, but it is a notion that ought to be examined carefully by any serious animal advocate, as this divergence is the cause of much of the in-fighting that we witness in the movement today. Most important is that this issue should not be brushed off, as it so often is, as simply a matter of ‘divisive commentary’ about tactics or semantics.

Gary L. Francione is a Distinguished Professor of Law at Rutgers University and a respected philosopher of animal rights law and ethical theory. He is known for his criticism of animal welfare laws and regulations, his abolitionist theory of animal rights, and his promotion of veganism and nonviolence as the baseline principles of the abolitionist movement. As documented in Rain without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement, and in subsequent essays published on his website, Francione makes a powerful case for the necessity of rejecting animal welfare reform efforts, and argues that the confusion that has resulted from the joining of ‘rights’ (and the issue of animal use) with ‘welfare’ (and the issue of animal treatment) has obscured the original message of animal rights and is inhibiting the progression of the movement.

“The need to distinguish animal rights from animal welfare is clear not only because of the theoretical inconsistencies between the two positions but also because the most ardent defenders of institutionalized animal exploitation themselves endorse animal welfare. Almost everyone – including those who use animals in painful experiments or who slaughter them for food – accepts as abstract propositions that animals ought to be treated ‘humanely’ and ought not to be subjected to unnecessary suffering. Animal rights theory explicitly rejects this approach, holding that animals, like humans, have inherent value that must be respected. The rights view reflects a shift from a vague obligation to act ‘humanely’ to a theory of justice that rejects the status of animals as property [emphasis added]… The rights theorist rejects the use of animals in experiments or for human consumption, not simply because these activities cause animals to suffer, but because such use violates fundamental obligations of justice that we owe to nonhumans.”

Despite the fact that all our uses of animals are unnecessary, and many are, in fact, harmful to human health and the environment, animal exploitation enters into almost every aspect of our lives, from what we eat and wear, to our medicines and scientific research, to what we do for entertainment. In a society where extreme violence toward animals is not only widespread, but is considered completely socially acceptable, many advocates perceive animal welfare as the practical application of animal rights theory; the way to bring the lofty ideals of animal rights to the real world. To those who see the end of all animal use as an unattainable ideal, animal welfare reforms, which purport to lessen the suffering of animals currently enslaved, might appear to be a practical solution to the very real problem of the slow pace of social change.

But in his essay, The Four Problems of Animal Welfare: In a Nutshell, Francione argues against the efficacy of welfare reform efforts, for the following reasons:

  • First, animal welfare measures provide little, if any, significant protection to animal interests.
  • Second, animal welfare measures make the public feel better about animal exploitation and this encourages continued animal use.
  • Third, animal welfare does nothing to eradicate the property status of animals.
  • Fourth, every second of time and every cent of money spent on making exploitation more “humane” is less money and time spent on vegan/abolition education.

So why has the animal ‘rights’ movement, supposedly born in recognition of the inherent value of animals’ lives and in reaction to the inadequacies of the animal welfare movement, chosen the path of pursuing welfare reform after all? Rain Without Thunder documents the history of the rights movement and its ongoing love-affair with the enviable aspects of the welfare movement – greater public approval, insider status with exploiters and regulatory bodies, the immediate gratification that comes from short-term ‘victories’, and perhaps most enviable of all – an endless stream of funding from the pockets of mainstream donors who will write a check for animal welfare efforts but not for vegan education.

It’s true that in recent years the cause of animal rights has made its way into mainstream consciousness, but it has done so at the expense of its fundamental principles. As a result, the movement has lost sight of its goal and gone wildly off-course, the public has become totally confused as to what the words ‘animal rights’ really stand for, and the animals are suffering in more horrendous ways and in greater numbers than ever before.

Surely, in 2010, it is time for us all to take a step back and look honestly at where we are, how we came to be here, and where we are going in the future. In the decade to come, are we going to continue to sell our ideals in exchange for the illusion of ‘incremental’ change, or are we going to stand up for what we really believe in, embrace veganism as a moral imperative, and demand the recognition of the rights of those we are fighting for?

The confusion and incoherency that permeates the current climate of the animal rights movement is not only discomforting and upsetting, it is also paralyzing, and the best way we can fight against this is to be crystal clear about our position: that all uses of animals are unethical, and that those of us who truly care about the rights of others must renounce our own participation in cruelty of every kind.


Read more: , , , , , , , , , ,


quick poll

vote now!

Loading poll...

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it


+ add your own
12:56AM PDT on Jul 15, 2010

Any one who believes that he/she has the right to own another living creature is a jerk (mildly put) and does not deserve the gift of life. Every living creature has equal right to be free as humans. I am not sure why some ignorant people feel more superior to other creatures or even to each other.

7:06AM PDT on Apr 11, 2010

Unfortunately, I think we have a VERY long way to go. We are living in a world that still treats women as "property", and exploits other countries of entire cultures.

Until humans change their fundamental thinking regading "ownership", i fear there wont be much of a difference in the end between animal rights or animal welfare.

I think its a basic flaw where GREED is the culprit left unchecked in the spiritual realm.

7:44PM PDT on Mar 29, 2010

HUMANS TREAT ANIMALS LIKE THE POOR PRISONERS OF WAR! ANIMAUX HUMAINS traitent comme des pauvres prisonniers de guerre!

7:16PM PDT on Mar 28, 2010


1:02AM PDT on Mar 25, 2010


1:50PM PDT on Mar 19, 2010

thanks for the information

1:40AM PST on Mar 12, 2010


1:40AM PST on Mar 12, 2010


10:25AM PST on Mar 9, 2010

Who are the beasts: HUMAN!!

11:38AM PST on Mar 1, 2010

A recent comment in a highbrow National Newspaper in the UK: The ­battle ­between meat eating and ­going ­vegetarian is one faced by ­millions of people. It is also a moral issue with which some of the greatest thinkers in history have grappled. We crave peace, yet deny it to the living ­beings we share this planet with. We have forgotten that compassion is the distinguishing mark of a civili­sation, and all our otherwise great achievements are clouded by the suffering of billions of animals. The environmental and health issues ­related with meat eating are a clear indicator that the human race has to revert to a plant-based diet if it is to leave this planet in a good enough shape for future generations.

add your comment

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Care2 - Be Extraordinary - Start a Care2 Petition
ads keep care2 free
ads keep care2 free

more from causes

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.