Animal Rights Versus Animal Welfare

St. Johns River State College

Animal Rights versus Animal Welfare

Kaitlin Jackson
201320 – Composition II, SEC. X3
Professor Bryant
April 22, 2013

If you had the option to participate in experiments that caused you pain, would you? If you had the alternative to live in a cage or in a house which would you prefer? If you had the choice to live or die which would you choose? The truth is that the majority of humans would fancy living in a house and would not be a part of painful experimentation. So, why do we think that non-human animals deserve any different? Although animal rights and animal welfare frequently fall on the same side of an issue, there is a fundamental difference between the two ideologies: the right of humans to use animals. Like many other issues, there is a wide variety of positions on animal issues. One can imagine a spectrum with animal rights at one end, animal welfare in the middle, and the belief that animals do not deserve any moral consideration on the other end. Many people may find that their views do not fit completely within one box or the other, or may find that their positions change depending on the issue. So, which of the two ideologies is more rational for today’s society? In order to answer this question one must first know what animal rights and animal welfare mean as well as understanding the difference between the two.
Animal Rights is a radical ideology that attempts to elevate species of animals to equality with humans by applying human interpretations of morality. A core principle of the animal rights ideology is that no species on this planet is better than another; therefore, humans have no right to dominate over, use, breed, or eat nonhuman species. Animal welfare supports humane treatment and use of animals and also believes that humans have a responsibility for their care. Animal welfare theories accept that animals have interests but allow these interests to be traded away as long as there are human benefits that are thought to justify that sacrifice. Animal welfare is based on a principle of ownership of animals, a common sense approach that animals should be treated well and that animal cruelty is wrong.
So, which one of the two ideologies is more acceptable, and/or realistic for today’s society? Animal welfare is, indeed, the more acceptable and realistic position of the controversial subject on animal welfare versus animal rights; which is the better argument? Animal welfare is more realistic when taking into consideration all the things that we rely on daily that would be taken away if animal rights activists had their way. The responsible use of animals for human purposes, such as companionship, food, recreation, work, education, and research conducted for the benefit of both humans and animals, as well as making sure that the animals are cared for in ways that minimize fear, pain, stress, and suffering are the main pieces of evidence that swayed me to stand behind the animal welfare approach as the most acceptable and rational ideology concerning animals’ overall well being during their life time. The major reasons why one should support the animal welfare ideology over the animal rights ideology are that they have the more rational and appropriate stance to take care of the animal suffrage problem in today’s society and they are more productive in the way they handle situations concerning animals.
To begin with, people within the animal rights movement believe that, because animals cannot speak for themselves, it is up to responsible people to speak on their behalf. As a supporter of the animal welfare ideology versus animal rights, there are many opposing opinions against their many view points; however, one should feel a sense of responsibility, as a supporter of the well being of animals, to agree with their statement. A major idea of animal welfare is humane treatment and use of animals and also believes that humans have a responsibility for their care, which is what this belief from the animal rights movement is trying to say. To most supporters of the animal welfare position, some uses of animals are unacceptable because the human benefit is minimal compared to the amount of animal suffering involved. These usually include uses like fur, cosmetics testing, canned hunting, and dog fighting. On these issues, both the animal rights and animal welfare position would call for the elimination of these uses of animals.
Setting aside the one and only similarity between the two ideologies, there are several other principles to the animal rights ideology that I do not agree with. One of them being the main idea behind animal rights: that, although people and creatures are not equal, non-human animals should be treated the same way individuals are. Under these ideals, no one should do anything to an animal that causes it pain, suffering or premature death, such as medical experimentation, hunting or imprisonment in circuses or zoos. The idea that no one should do anything to harm an animal is an understandable argument; however, what does not make since is the statement, although people and creatures are not equal, non-human animals should be treated the same way individuals are. This statement does not make since because it is contradictory. If activists say plain and simple that people and creatures are not equal, what are the justifications in saying that these creatures should be treated as if they are humans? There is no justification, in my research I found no explanation for this ideal. If an animal is going to be treated as if they are a person, then the people responsible for treating them this way should consider them as just that.
Another one of these controversial principles is an argument in regards to the basic right to not be treated as the property of others; an abolitionist approach to the animal rights movement. Animals were put on earth by God for man to use for necessities such as food and clothing. If the animals are not suffering and are kept in good conditions before and/or during their fate, then the benefits to humans outweigh the misfortune of the animal. To put it simply, we all must make our round in the circle of life. Another refute to the statement that animals should have the right to not be treated as property is that animals were meant to be and enjoy being pets as well as being used for work such as horses on a farm.
Speciesism (the assumption of human superiority leading to the exploitation of animals) is also rejected by animal rights activists. They believe that the species of a sentient being is no more reason to deny the protection of this basic right than race, sex, and age is a reason to deny membership in the human moral community to other humans. I disagree. Although animals are indeed sentient beings, humans are intellectually superior to animals. I agree that demographics such as race, sex, and age are no reason to deny the protection of the basic right to not be treated as property of others; however, I will argue that lack of intellect does deny the protection of this basic right. In order to be treated as an individual with rights as well as liberties you must be able to use and understand them affectively.
Also, most (but not all) activists under the animal rights ideology want to put an end to the use of animals for food. This principle goes hand in hand with the core belief that no species on this planet is better than another; therefore, humans have no rights to dominate over, use, breed, or eat nonhuman species. Yes, animals are smart and I strongly believe that they have feelings but it is really not debatable who is more intellectually superior. As the human race, it is our job to restore balance to the ecosystem, not just for the survival of the animals, but also for the survival of our own race. Meat is an important part of most normal daily diets. If we did not kill animals for food, the animals would eventually take over. All types of animals would become overpopulated; thus, putting humans in danger. The bigger issue is killing to many animals to set off a chain reaction, but the same goes for not killing enough – this is why we have things such as hunting season; in which humans are only permitted to kill in a certain time frame as well as, in most cases, not being able to exceed a certain number of killings per season depending on the animal being hunted.
Animal rights activists also states that people also should not impose on animals’ habitats. They would argue that we, as humans, have no right to capture and house animals; for example, human societies. They would also argue that humans have no right to euthanize stray and/or wild and dangerous animals. Capturing and housing stray or feral animals is a way to keep our race safe. While keeping humans safe, the animals will also have a safe place to sleep and will be provided with food rather than having to hunt and fend for themselves. Euthanizing animals is understandable to a certain extent; for example, if a dog is too dangerous, old, or sick to be able to find a home. No one is going to adopt a dog that could be a hazard to their life or is going to die soon because of age or illness. Therefore, these situations are one of the many reasons euthanizing should be encouraged. Do not get me wrong, I love animals and would hate to hear about or see one die, but I am rational when it comes to what needs to be done. A sad truth in regards to animal shelters is that approximately 5 million to 7 million companion animals enter animal shelters nationwide every year, and approximately 3 million to 4 million are euthanized (60 percent of dogs and 70 percent of cats). This statistic shows just how hard it would be to keep each and every one of these animals under control if not captured and when captured, how hard it is to determine which ones are to be euthanized and which ones will live to see another day. Age, health, and friendliness have a significant impact on that decision.
There are many animal welfare organizations as well as animal rights organizations. Animal welfare organizations include: the ASPCA (Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals), the MSPCA (MA Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals), the NAIA (The National Animal Interest Alliance), and AHA (American Humane Association). Some animal rights organizations include: PETA (People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals), and HSUS (Humane Society Of The United States). The most commonly known animal welfare organization is the ASPCA, which was the first humane society to be established in North America and is, today, one of the largest in the world. This organization provides local and national leadership in three key areas: caring for pet parents and pets, providing positive outcomes for at-risk animals and serving victims of animal cruelty. An organization of which has various viewpoints on each and every unique situation concerning animals’ well being. PETA is the largest animal rights organization in the world, with more than 3 million members and supporters. This organization is known for uncompromising, unwavering views on animal rights. They are by no means afraid to make difficult comparisons, say the unpopular thing, or point out the uncomfortable truth, if it means that animals will benefit.
The difference in these two organizations is apparent. Animal rights organizations like PETA is too one sided; compromise is just not in there vocabulary – a complete abolitionist approach. It is “either their way or the highway,” so to speak. Animal welfare organizations, such as the ASPCA, have completely diverse opinions and approaches to how they handle each and every situation. They take into consideration the animals’ feelings and well being as well as the ratio of human benefit to animals’ suffering before they take action under any circumstance. In regards to today’s society, animal welfare organizations such as the ASPCA have a more realistic approach to how they will accomplish their very controversial and difficult job of helping not only domestic, but feral animals all around the world. In fact, the ideology of animal rights organizations hinders the do-gooders’ from achieving their ultimate goal; to prohibit the use of animals’ as food, recreational resources, entertainment, and experimental factors. The “this is our stance on this situation and we are not changing our mind or compromising,” idea limits the activist from various options that they could have to help the animals’.
In conclusion, animal rights and animal welfare frequently fall on the same side of an issue; however, there is a fundamental difference between the two ideologies: the right for humans to use animals. One can imagine a spectrum with animal rights at one end, animal welfare in the middle, and the belief that animals do not deserve any moral consideration on the other end. So, which of the two ideologies is more rational and appropriate for today’s society? In order to answer this question one must first know what animal rights and animal welfare mean as well as understanding the difference between the two. The differences between the two ideologies ranges from how radical of an approach they have towards the issues to whether they believe that humans have the right to use animals, and if so, to what extent. Another major difference between the two ideologies is the different organizations such as ASPCA and PETA; and what their mission statements for success in the animal rights/welfare communities are. It is easy to understand why the animal rights activists have such an abolitionist approach to the issues concerning the well being of animals; however, their approach is just too unrealistic for today’s society. The animal welfare ideology compromises with each and every situation, taking into account the benefits as well as the disadvantages of siding on either the side of the animals or humans. Either way, the way the animal welfare ideology handles each situation is better suited for the world today. Humans rely on animals daily, which is why animal welfare supports the use of animals only when the suffering or compromising of the animal is minimal, compared to the benefit of the human.

WORK CITED
De Aluja, Aline S. "Animal Welfare in the Veterinary Medicine and Animal Husbandry Curriculum. What for and Why?" Veterinaria México 42.2 (n.d.): n. pag. EBSCOhost. Web. 4 Feb. 2013. .

Forkman, Björn, and Isabelle Veissier. "The Nature of Animal Welfare Science." Annual Review of Biomedical Sciences 10 (2008): n. pag. EBSCOhost. Web. 04 Feb. 2013. .

Monamy, Vaughan. Animal Experimentation [electronic Resource] : A Guide to the Issues / Vaughan Monamy. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge UP, 2009. Print.

Palmer, Clare. Animal Ethics in Context [electronic Resource] / Clare Palmer. New York: Columbia UP, 2010. Print.

Sherry, Clifford J. Animal Rights [electronic Resource] : A Reference Handbook / Clifford J. Sherry. 2nd ed. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO, C2009. Print. (Contemporary World Issues).

Stafford, Kevin J. The Welfare of Dogs [electronic Resource] / by Kevin Stafford. Vol. 4. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006. Print. Animal Welfare.

Unknown. "Lessons Learned in Animal Welfare Survey." National Hog Farmer Home Page. Penton Media, Inc., 2013. Web. 04 Feb. 2013. .

Cited: De Aluja, Aline S. "Animal Welfare in the Veterinary Medicine and Animal Husbandry Curriculum. What for and Why?" Veterinaria México 42.2 (n.d.): n. pag. EBSCOhost. Web. 4 Feb. 2013. . Forkman, Björn, and Isabelle Veissier. "The Nature of Animal Welfare Science." Annual Review of Biomedical Sciences 10 (2008): n. pag. EBSCOhost. Web. 04 Feb. 2013. . Monamy, Vaughan. Animal Experimentation [electronic Resource] : A Guide to the Issues / Vaughan Monamy. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge UP, 2009. Print. Palmer, Clare. Animal Ethics in Context [electronic Resource] / Clare Palmer. New York: Columbia UP, 2010. Print. Sherry, Clifford J. Animal Rights [electronic Resource] : A Reference Handbook / Clifford J. Sherry. 2nd ed. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO, C2009. Print. (Contemporary World Issues). Stafford, Kevin J. The Welfare of Dogs [electronic Resource] / by Kevin Stafford. Vol. 4. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006. Print. Animal Welfare. Unknown. "Lessons Learned in Animal Welfare Survey." National Hog Farmer Home Page. Penton Media, Inc., 2013. Web. 04 Feb. 2013. .