1. AR / Welfare Introduction         3. Theoretical Origins of New Welfarism

2. Three Different Views of the Rights/Welfare Relationship

A. The Opinions of Scholars

Recent scholarship on the human/animal relationship contends that the modern animal "rights" movement is fundamentally different from its historical predecessor, the animal welfare movement, or the humane movement. These differences reflect the rejection by rights advocates of a central tenet of animal welfare: that non-humans are the property of humans and human obligations to non-humans are limited to a prohibition against the unnecessary infliction of pain or death on non-humans. Rights advocates generally hold that at least some non-humans possess moral rights that protect certain interests in a more absolute way, just as human rights protect certain human interests.

For example, the modern animal protection movement is characterized by rights notions which, according to sociologists Jasper and Nelkin, are drawn partly from feminism and environmentalism. These characterizations embody a rejection of "instrumentalism" or "the confusion of ends and means" that reduces nature, women, and animals "all with inherent value as ends in themselves--to the status of things and tools." [FN4] Animal rights advocates demand the "abolition of all exploitation of animals, on the grounds that animals have inherent, inviolable rights." [FN5] Rights are "accepted as a moral trump card that cannot be disputed. Justified in terms of tradition, nature, or fundamental moral principles, rights are considered non-negotiable." [FN6]

Anthropologist Susan Sperling claims that although traditional animal welfarists have "attempted to improve the treatment of animals in a variety of settings and to educate the public about humane concerns(,) . . . adherents of the recent (animal rights movement) question assumptions about the human relationship to animals that have been fundamental to Western culture in the modern period." [FN7] Sperling argues that *402 animal rights advocates do not want merely to reform institutions of animal exploitation; they wish to abolish that exploitation altogether. Just as "(n)ineteenth-century anti-vivisectionists felt themselves to be completely separate from, and often at odds with, the mainstream humane movement . . . the modern animal rights advocates consider themselves to be distinctly different from the local humane society." [FN8]

Political scientist Robert Garner argues that "the terms welfare and rights are indicative of the key division within the animal protection movement: between those who consider that animal interests should take a subordinate, albeit important, position and those who recognize a higher moral status for animals." [FN9] Depending on the moral theory involved, this moral status may entail according equal consideration to animal and human interests, or it may involve something akin to "personhood" status for animals that would entitle them to be holders of rights. In any event, Garner contends that animal rights advocates, unlike their animal welfare counterparts, reject the moral orthodoxy that regards animals as "inferior" to humans. Based on their acceptance of a higher moral status for animals, animal rights advocates seek the "complete abolition of animal use for science and/or food, (and) are opposed to the moral orthodoxy which justifies these activities." [FN10]

Philosophers Lawrence Finsen and Susan Finsen argue that "(p)rior to the emergence of the current animal rights movement, the aims of eliminating cruelty and encouraging a more compassionate attitude toward animals dominated the thinking of those who gave any thought at all to the treatment of animals in America. . . ." [FN11] The modern animal rights movement "does not seek humane reforms but challenges the assumption of human superiority and demands abolition of institutions *403 it considers exploitative. Rather than asking for a greater (and optional) charity toward animals, the animal rights movement demands justice, equality, fairness, and rights." [FN12]

B. The Opinions of Animal Users

The difference between the rights viewpoint and the welfare position has also been observed by those involved in the institutionalized exploitation of non-humans for biomedical experiments or animal agriculture. These animal users endorse the welfarist point of view and often explicitly acknowledge that their goal is to make animal use as "humane" as possible. Notably, they reject the rights viewpoint as representing a qualitatively different way of approaching the human/animal relationship.

For example, the American Medical Association ("AMA") claims that animal welfare is "understandable and appeals to scientists, the public, and legislators." [FN13] Animal rights, on the other hand, reflects a view that is "radical," "militant," "terrorist," and opposed to human well-being. [FN14] Similarly, Americans for Medical Progress ("AMP"), an organization that advocates on behalf of those who use animals in research and commercial product development, recently wrote to law school deans around the country in order to warn of a "dangerous philosophy that is quickly emerging as a popular course of study in our law schools." [FN15] This "dangerous philosophy" is the philosophy of animal "rights," which, according to AMP, "goes beyond legitimate animal welfare issues." [FN16]

*404 AMP claims that although "most Americans fully support animal welfare (the humane treatment of animals)," the "misguided philosophy" of animal rights, which recognizes that animals, like humans, may be rightholders, "is held only by a small minority in this country." [FN17] Interest in animal rights by law students is a "foreboding sign for anyone concerned with health care. These lawyers will be asked to protect these extremists who destroy research facilities and cripple biomedical research with excessive regulation." [FN18] Such regulations will "cost researchers time and money, causing Americans to wait longer for cures and treatments and pay more for their health care." [FN19] In a recent editorial, AMP Vice President John M. Clymer reinforced this distinction: "The protection of animal welfare is a moral imperative. The promotion of animal rights' extremism is another matter entirely." [FN20]

*405 Frederick K. Goodwin, Administrator of the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration of the Department of Health and Human Services, claims that the animal welfare movement has had "a distinguished history with a primary focus on the prevention of cruelty to animals (that rests upon the notion) that our responsible stewardship of animals involves humane care."' [FN21] Goodwin claims that animal rights advocates, on the other hand, subscribe to the view that "humans and animals have equivalent rights" [FN22] and that "animals have intrinsic rights of their own, a notion that conflicts with the foundation of our entire legal system." [FN23]

C. The Opinions of Animal Advocates

Ironically, the only real disagreement about whether there is a distinction between animal rights and animal welfare, and about the significance of that distinction, exists within the animal rights movement itself. Although virtually all modern animal advocates describe their various positions as embodying "rights" views, many leaders of the movement now explicitly dismiss the importance of rights notions. For example, Don Barnes, education director at the National Anti-Vivisection Society ("NAVS"), argues that the distinction between animal rights and animal welfare is "artificial" and that it is "elitist" to maintain that the rights position and the welfarist positions are inconsistent. [FN24]

According to Kim W. Stallwood, editor of The Animals' Agenda, which describes itself as an "animal rights" magazine, there are many different philosophical theories concerning animals, but none of these can be championed as being better than any others. Stallwood labels the animal rights position as "utopian" and cautions that "(s)ome animal rights proponents use particular philosophical theories as yardsticks to measure" *406 fidelity to animal rights ideology. He argues that such efforts are "artificially constructed devices" that are "divisive" of movement unity and "elitist." [FN25]

Kenneth Shapiro, president of The Animals' Agenda and co-editor of The Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, also exemplifies the devaluation of rights theory. The journal "publishes reports and articles on methods of experimentation, husbandry and care that demonstrably enhance the welfare of farm, laboratory, companion and wild animals." [FN26] Shapiro is also executive director of Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ("PSYeta"), which is "dedicated to the promotion of animal welfare" and attempts "to balance the value of experimentation and other animal use against the suffering of animals." [FN27]

Zoe Weil of the American Anti-Vivisection Society ("AAVS") also maintains that the philosophical differences between animal rights and animal welfare are irrelevant and that only "compassion, concern and respect for animals" matter. Accord ing to Weil, "(a)nimal welfare does mean something good and positive." [FN28] The AAVS magazine promotes publications that endorse more "humane" methods of experimentation. [FN29] Finally, Carol Adams, of Feminists for Animal Rights, claims that rights are patriarchal and that we should go "beyond animal *407 rights" and accept that "sympathy, compassion, and caring are the ground upon which theory about humane treatment of animals should be constructed." [FN30] Sympathy, compassion, and caring are part of the welfarist paradigm that made animal protection dependent upon whether humans had "kindly" feelings toward animals and not on any notion of justice owed to non-humans.

Even the more "radical" animal "rights" groups have distanced themselves from animal rights. Ingrid E. Newkirk, director of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ("PETA"), maintains that the "all or nothing" position of animal rights is "unrealistic" and argues in favor of animal welfare. [FN31] According to Alex Pacheco of PETA, as long as people just "care" about animals, it does not matter whether they adopt the animal rights philosophy. [FN32] PETA's mission statement contains no mention of animal rights.

This explicit rejection of rights theory by supposed rights advocates is becoming increasingly more apparent. Animal advocates have planned a march for animals to be held in Washington, D.C., on June 23, 1996. Principal supporters of the 1996 march include the Humane Society of the United States ("HSUS"), which supports "humane" vivisection, [FN33] the eating of animals raised in accordance with the principles of "humane sustainable agriculture," [FN34] and hunting. [FN35]

*408 HSUS President John Hoyt has made no secret of his view that the animal rights view threatens the "kind of respectability that (HSUS) and a number of other organizations have worked hard to achieve in order to distinguish the legitimate animal protection movement from the more radical elements." [FN36] Another supporter of the 1996 march is Don Barnes of NAVS, which also supports the use of animals in experiments despite its supposedly anti-vivisection policy. [FN37]

The prevailing view within the organized animal movement is that the distinction between animal welfare and animal rights is, as one leading animal advocate put it, a "distinction without a difference." [FN38] This rejection of rights by animal advocates does not necessarily mean that all of these advocates have simply embraced some version of classical welfarism. Many modern animal advocates see the abolition of animal exploitation as a long-term goal, but they see welfarist reform, which seeks to reduce animal suffering, as setting the course for the interim strategy.

*409 Henry Spira of Animal Rights International ("ARI") "sees no contradiction between working for abolition and accepting reform. Reform is basically about strategies, abolition is the ultimate goal. . . . The two aren't contradictory."' [FN39] Finsen and Finsen have observed: "(T)he ultimate goals of the animal rights movement are clearly different from those of the humane movement," but "many within the movement see the possibility--or even the necessity--of achieving those goals by gradual and reformist means" employed by welfarists. [FN40] This view posits some sort of causal relationship between welfare and rights such that pursuing welfarist reform will lead eventually to the abolition of all institutionalized animal exploitation.

This view, referred to here as "new welfarism," leads to the endorsement by supposed animal rights advocates of welfarist reform. For example, claimed animal rights advocates, including groups such as PETA and NAVS, actively support welfarist legislation, such as the federal Animal Welfare Act and other admittedly welfarist approaches to regulating the use of animals in experiments. [FN41] PETA supports the shooting of boar in Hawaii as "far more humane" than snaring the boar. [FN42] Lead ing animal advocate Henry Spira has joined with the Foundation for Biomedical Research, which promotes the use of animals in experiments, and praises the "three R's"--reduction of the number of animals used, refinement of procedures to minimize pain, and replacement of animals with non-animal "models" when these are available. [FN43] Spira has also joined with the American Meat Institute in promoting "improved" slaughtering methods. [FN44]

*410 Although claiming to support animal rights, the Ark Trust, founded by Gretchen Wyler of the Fund for Animals, supports the use of animals in entertainment despite the wholly gratuitous nature of such exploitation. Ark Trust takes the position that although "opposed to animal abuse in any form, we do not believe that working with animals in films and television itself constitutes animal abuse." [FN45]

Footnotes

1. AR / Welfare Introduction         3. Theoretical Origins of New Welfarism