Promoting “baby steps” in animal husbandry is like campaining for better equipment in some sweatshops. Both make exploitation more profitable for the owners of these systems, yet do little, if anything, to relieve the suffering of individuals involved.

We don’t agree about campaigns to modify animal husbandry, but I think you should feel glad about your advocacy, and move forward toward liberating animals, a goal we certainly share.

So I’ll make an attempt at starting to map out a strategy, and would encourage members of our movement to develop it. These are just some random undeveloped ideas, that have been floating around in my head for a while.

We should first of all be clear about our goal. This is not difficult, it seems everyone who’s posted here wants total abolition, as quickly as possible.

We need to spend time strategising, reflecting, and assessing the effectiveness, or likely effectiveness, or our advocacy work. (Too often I think well-intentioned grass-roots advocates miss this step, and their work hasn’t a hope of succeeding. They may even bring bad publicity etc, to the detriment of their cause. We ought to take the time to work out how to avoid this happening in our advocacy!)

We should take account of all the tools in our advocacy toolbox. We shouldn’t dismiss any for our own moral reasons – I believe any such dismissal is based on flawed morality – remember the goal is total abolition, and THEN ask what will be most effective.
These are our tools:
* the argument that animals should be given rights
* the argument that animals are sentient beings, able to know and to experience, to think, to feel pain and joy and everything else.
* the fact that animals suffer dreadfully in all forms of animal production, physically and psychologically. Facts are readily available from many sources, including veterinary and farm science journals and others, industry publications, government, and others. There’s an incredible amount of information, which members of society are very likely to believe, depending on the source (which should always be stated for this reason).
* The facts that vegan food is fantastic, that veganism is 100% healthy, that veganism in no way equates to food deprivation, etc.
* The fact that the environment suffers in animal production.
* Probably many others.

Things we should be careful of:
* As spokespersons for veganism, to keep ourselves healthy and well-presented.
* The animal industries have highly skilled people, trained in public relations, how to deal with negative publicity and how to promote their products. We have to meet them at their level, to have any hope of competing. Luckily we have the truth on our side, but it’s not enough against their might and money.
* Abolition is just not going to happen overnight, it’ll have to happen in steps, taking probably a long time. Don’t dismiss any campaign as ineffective based on rigid theories. Nothing is rigid, things change and we can guide change. E.g. the battery cage banning – consider it just a step towards abolition. If we can effect a ban on battery cages, we shouldn’t stop there! Re-strategise and use the public awareness etc raised by that victory, to start to work towards the total abolition of egg farming.

Some ideas about what to do, practically speaking:
* Promote veganism. Food producers will meet demand (if no meat is demanded, they won’t produce it). Governments are more likely to change policies based on ideas that are popular in society (but not always).
* Suss out how people think, so we can address people’s specific concerns. Encourage psychologists to be interested in the minds of meat eaters – conduct surveys about attitudes towards vegetarianism and veganism, asking questions about what people see as the barriers to becoming vegan etc. Then, if certain trends occur in people’s attitudes, we will know what we have to address. (Commercial advertisers do this sort of thing, to see how to best promote their products.)
* I imagine that it’s still a very common belief that vegans are unhealthy and deprived – we need to do a lot of work to change this fallacy! Many people already know about the pain and suffering, but will not go vegan because they still think animal products are necessary in our diets, or that it’s difficult and complicated to have a healthy vegan diet. If it’s made easy for these people, they may readily embrace veganism. (That’s just from my observations & comments I receive – they don’t want to cause suffering, but “no way, veganism’s unhealthy”)
* Get people who’ve studied business etc, to advise about what the industries are doing so well to get their messages across, that we’re not yet succeeding in
* Advertise. I think this is why the industries are so effective in getting their foul, deceptive messages across, while we with our truths and our compassion sit here aghast. Fundraise to pay for more bill-boards etc. Be careful about our message – e.g. one campaign I heard was refused, had a bloody lamb on a cross, to be put on bill-boards around Easter time – even I thought that was distasteful.
* I think leafletting is very effective too. Depends on the leaflet. It’s also good because it’s social and informal, and you get to meet and get to know other animal advocates, and discuss advocacy ideas regularly – more fun and less intimidating than formal meetings.
* Encourage other people to become involved in animal advocacy, at every appropriate opportunity, to grow the movement. Support the new people who are entering the movement, because if they’re anything like me, they may feel overwhelmed and intimidated by many aspects of advocacy work, for some time. The first advocacy I did was environmental, and I was very naive when I started. I worked with such a fantastic organisation, with people who seemed to work at a far superior level to that of anyone I’d ever met before. Even the way they acted towards one another was foreign, and yet so much better than I’d been used to. There were amazing and positive things going on, and somehow I felt overwhelmed and ineffective, and eventually I left (later to join animal advocacy, a little less naive). But maybe they could have caught me and kept me? Or maybe not. But I know that a lot of people who join advocacy organisations don’t stick around – we need to work out what we’re doing that turns people away, and how to help people develop their skills so they feel they’re doing something positive, enjoy what they’re doing, and want to keep working.
* Work out what else may be effective. Keep an open mind about it.

Never loose sight either of our ideals, or of reality. The two must work together, to move us towards our goals.

I agree, Ellie, there are two sides to the animal-advocacy movement. However to me it seems the divide lies here: those who want the total abolition of animal exploitation, and those who think it’s enough to just improve animals’ conditions while still exploiting them. It seems to me that everyone who’s posted here is quite clearly on the “total abolition” side, and no one thinks it’s ok to still farm animals if they are just looked after better. So it seems we’re in full agreement about our goals :-) but maybe not our methods.

I’ve been considering further what trumps what, rights or well-being?
For me, always well-being. Because this is how animals think. I consider myself an animal advocate, and I’ll speak for what I believe the animals want. Like a lawyer, they must represent the client and speak for what they want. The animals want to be healthy and at peace and free to pursue their own lives as they want, without humans taking their flesh and bodily products. In other words, animals want their well-being. The concept of “rights” is something humans have invented to work out how we humans think of and treat other humans, animals and anything else we give “rights” to.
However, I’m also 100% pro-rights – because I think it’s only by affording animals rights, that they’re ever going to be entirely free from humans using them to fulfil their selfish desires, causing them suffering and deprivation. So the “rights” argument is a tool, and a very major one, in the quest for total “well-being” for the animals.

Those who say that it’s possible for animal production ever to entirely embrace an animal’s well-being, are kidding themselves. “Welfarists” in the improvements-only sense, are either kidding themselves, or making a compromise (the animals are the ones compromised).

Considering again the campaign that’s been going in Australia, educating about, and trying to ban, battery cages, but not other forms of egg farming.
I was beginning to question whether it’s a worthwhile campaign, in the light of everyone’s comments above. Maybe it’s a flawed campaign, if after hearing about battery cages, people start to get a jolly feeling when they buy free-range eggs. If that’s happening, perhaps the campaign could have been better orchestrated?
However, nothing’s so clear-cut. If they’re successful, I’m not going to lament the end of the battery cage! Maybe the next year, someone runs another campaign as a follow-on, asking for the end of all egg-production. Perhaps, in the real world in which we live, it would not have been possible to bring an end to all egg-production in one sweeping campaign. Perhaps two steps, or ten steps, would actually work out easier and quicker than one step. I don’t think the battery cage campaign is sending us backwards on the quest for abolition – it’s encouraging people to think of hens as feeling beings who can suffer. Once people are thinking like that and buying free-range eggs, next step would be to present all the well-being impediments to do with free-range eggs, also the argument that any exploitation is wrong per se, other arguments including health and environmental, and asking people to consider not supporting egg farming at all. Can the end of egg-production be effected in one big step, from battery and other systems, to no egg farming at all? Tell me how! I don’t think campaigns encouraging people to think about animals as feeling beings, are a blow to our abolition goals – it’s just taking smaller, maybe more manageable steps.

Just because in the past, well-being based campaigns haven’t been successful in abolishing exploitation, doesn’t mean we should discard them as a tool in working towards abolition. Working out what exactly has and hasn’t worked, such campaigns can be used as part of our larger strategy. The trick is for us to use the awareness generated by such campaigns, as an opportunity.
I’ll do another post with some ideas about strategies etc…

While I’m sure many humans opt for vegetarianism because other animals suffer, the problem is once their misery is regulated to what ‘welfare’ groups find acceptable, these same vegetarians often resume meat eating. I’ve read numerous articles, including some by famous vegetarians, who are eating meat again because of “humane” animal farming.

Obviously, these former vegetarians never stopped regarding animals as resources, who have interests beyond how they are farmed, in fact, in not being farmed at all. But when activism tries to modify animal husbandry, it’s no wonder people don’t understand that.

Rather than stand under an umbrella, I think there’s need to define our efforts, and clarify our terms in the simplest way possible. In my view, it’s essential to distinguish and separate activism that tries to modify animal use. Long before any of us were born, this came to be known as “animal welfare”. I don’t know about your booklet, Amy, but I think regulating husbandry and animal rights are opposing dimensions.

Leafletting the booklet about animal cruelty (I mentioned earlier), does make people go vegetarian or vegan, I know because sometimes we have people come back and say so. So this is at least one way using welfare arguments can work to lead people to veganism and reduce animal production. I don’t think the booklet as it is, will lead very directly to animal personhood, but it’s making people think of animals as feeling beings, so I don’t think it’s going backwards on that issue.

The booklet uses information about how animal’s well being (welfare) is compromised, to educate people, for the benefit of animals. It doesn’t advocate for free range, it’s message is clearly “go vegan”. so it’s not the sort of activism that says, “this production system is better than this production system”, but it is welfarist in the “horror, shock treatment – stop supporting altogether” way.

So – sometimes i’m getting confused in this argument. I think because there are so many aspects to welfare, as Joel said, it’s like a big umbrella we all sit under. I think sometimes using welfare arguments, or working directly for welfare improvements, is going to benefit animals – in fact, it does, as in the leafletting example. Sometimes it won’t – hogwashing. I now think welfare arguments should be coupled with the rights/respect/sentient beings argument, for maximum benefit. I’m really glad to have had (be having, if it continues?) this discussion with you all, thank you, it’s made me realise where I do stand and want to go with my activism, including that it’s best to couple the rights/respect argument as often as possible with the welfare aspects.

I couldn’t disagree more with the view that animal welfare activism will lead to veganism, or recognition of animal personhood. The evidence I’ve seen strongly suggests the opposite. And while I wish this divide did not exist, I don’t if broadening the meaning of welfarism would change our differences– but then that’s without knowing your theoretical work.

Amy, I think you have really hit on something when you say there are two welfarist positions: welfare for its own sake, and welfare as a means to a further end, namely, total human respect for animals. I do sometimes see Ellie, for example, as advocating for the latter. What bothers you is that this would seem to turn animals into mere tools, whose individual welfare could be sacrificed for the greater, long-term good. Now what I find interesting is that the welfare-as-a-means stance not only runs afoul of the welfare-for-its-own sake stance, but also seems to be exactly the opposite of what the rights stance itself is supposed to be about! For using an animal as a mere tool is the very antithesis of treating it respectfully.

Let me try to tease this out a little further, using the theoretical terminology and analysis that is my stock in trade. Welfarists like Peter Singer, who are called utilitarians, hold that we humans are always obligated to do what is best for the totality. This would seem to have the uncomfortable implication that we will often be ethically obligated to harm or ignore the welfare of the few to better promote the welfare of the many. Utilitarians have two, almost opposite ways of dealing with that implication. One is just to bite the bullet and say that if we take welfare seriously, we simply have to be prepared to sacrifice some (ourselves or others) for the greater good (just as we personally commonly undergo short-term pain for long-term gain, like when we go to the dentist). The other response is to argue that in fact the greater good will be promoted by paying attention to the “smaller” goods. In fact, a welfarist could conceivable argue that caring about the welfare of each individual animal you come across (including yourself) is the best long-term strategy for uplifting the totality of animals. Adam Smith argues something analogous to that in promoting the selfish, or egotistic, entrepreneurialism of capitalism. In fact, as I mentioned in my last comment, a welfarist could even argue that respecting all animals is the most effective strategy for assuring their best welfare, since evolution has prepared them to deal with their own welfare better than any human intervener could hope to.

So welfarism, and in particular utilitarianism, is a wonderfully flexible theoretical approach. That is both its boon and its bane, of course, since it could be twisted to support just about any course of action, including flying airliners into skyscrapers. But it may also happen to be the correct way to conceive things, in which case the whole issue among those of us who advocate for animals is a strategic one: what is the most effective way to promote the best welfare of all animals (presumably including also the human ones)? Some would say “by respecting them and setting them free,” while others would say “by trying to improve their conditions incrementally,” and so forth — but in the end, we are all welfarists, concerned about prompting the best good of animals and just differing as to the best means.

Meanwhile, the true rights theorist sees rights not as a means to procuring the greatest good of all animals, but as the highest intrinsic value we should be promoting on behalf of animals. This would seem to have its own uncomfortable implications, such as that animals should be left to fend for themselves even if we could help them in a welfare sense; and also, as Amy suggested, could prove to be exceedingly callous if it resulted in an all-or-nothing stance of abolitionist purism, while meanwhile animals continue to suffer unabated and be slaughtered cruelly and prematurely in the billions into the indefinite future.

Without studying everybody’s posts more intensively, my impression is that the abolitionists among us are confusing or conflating the above theoretical positions (pure welfarism and pure rights/respect), which it is quite natural to do unless one happens to be a trained theoretician (and even then)! But this, as I have been arguing, does have the practical implication of making our arguments vulnerable to easy divide-and-conquer rebuttal by the animal-abusers.

So here is my own suggestion (subject to your critique!) for a unified and coherent stance. I have to say that this discussion has somewhat turned me around. I began as an arch-rights theorist, but I can see how advantageous the welfarist approach is, having now thought it through more carefully in light of everybody’s commentary. Welfarism is the Big Tent, as I have tried to articulate above. It means that all of us are on the same page, but we are just trying to work out the best strategy for promoting the best welfare of all animals. There is ample room for legitimate and good-faith disagreement about strategy, from reform to abolition (although of course there could be self-serving or misguided advocates in either camp), and also of course different strategies will work under different circumstances.

Meanwhile, I remain a committed rights theorist in my philosophical work; but I think the practical upshot would be the same. That is, my own theoretical work is to try to show how rights theory not only works better as pure theory, but is also up to the task of grounding practical recommendations that we can all accept. But as of now I think that particular discussion would not best serve the interests of animal advocacy.

To conclude: The way that rights ideas do clearly serve animal advocacy is in terms of the general consideration that promoting animal rights may be the best way to promote the best long-term welfare of animals. For example, Ellie and of course Lee and others have made the important point that most animals will still be treated abominably, and maybe even more than ever, if “successful” reform movements result in more consumer complacency. But that’s still welfarism, but as advancing or at least including in its “arsenal” respect for animals (but probably also certain kinds of reform movements).

If activists want humans to stop using other animals, they should speak for them as thinking, feeling, personal beings, who should not be exploited. And they should not compromise that message by offering consumers lesser degrees of cruelty—- because that (especially coming from people who are supposed to care about animals), makes animal use more acceptable. It does not work to reduce the use of animals.

Consumers don’t care about what we want. They don’t care if you’d rather they didn’t eat animals at all. They want to eat what they want and not feel guilty about it, and that’s what welfare campaigns allow them to do.

For the sake of non-human animals, we have to challenge the root of exploitation which designates them as non-persons. We have to show such thinking is outdated because now we know animals have their own interests– not just for open space and getting killed ‘nicely’– but to choose how they will live, who they will befriend or not, when and with whom they will mate, and how they will care for their children.

There’s plelnty of information about the personal lives of animals. Jeffrey Masson, for one author, has written several books, most recently “Altruistic Armadillos to Zenlike Zebras”. So we’ve got lots to work with.

The only campaigns that can work are those which end a particular use of animals. For example, the Coalition to Ban Horse-Drawn Carriages in New York City is working to end this practice. It does not suggest horses can pull carriages if they have bigger stables, or longer resting periods, or other welfare measures that are totally impossible to enforce.

A campaign to end battery cages won’t stop hens from being farmed, or any of the other abuses that go with it. Do you see the difference? What’s worse is that it suggests it’s ok to farm hens, so long as they have open space. Promoting such measures, even when you say they’re not enough, makes animal consumers happy.

Meanwhile, as they rush to buy a variety of “humanely handled” cows, chickens, and other products, very few animals benefit from even these superficial measures. Free-range farming cannot replace factory farms because there are too many meat eaters, and too little land. If you want other practical reasons why animal welfare doesn’t work, see Lee’s article, and other posts above.

A small number of vegans, who encourage others to join them in respecting living beings, will do more for animals than millions of consumers who think they’re eating humane meat.

I’m starting to realise there’s 2 sides to welfare itself.

1. Welfare (well-being) can be considered important in-and-of-itself. Some people will work towards welfare improvements exclusively. Some people (including me) will work towards reduction/abolition, as well as welfare improvements if it seems at all likely to improve the lives of at least some individual animals.

2. Welfare can also be used as a tool to use in working towards reduction and abolition of exploitation, i.e. shocking meat eaters etc with information about what goes on.

It’s an interesting issue, whether we should let animals suffer just because improving their conditions might make people more complacent about their predicament, and reduce the shock-impact of information about industry practices.

If the “rights only” argument is good enough in itself without welfare aspects, then there should be no problem in trying to improve the conditions for animals in our spare time (even some animals – it’ll make a difference to those individuals), while working for the animals’ rights and an end to their exploitation, more full-time. If we do this, it would be important to make clear that welfare improvements are not enough, the animals are still suffering somewhat and being exploited, and that’s not on. But I don’t personally think the “rights only” argument is enough for most people (unless, anyone here can give some practical examples of how this is the best way to advocate for animals).

So I think this maybe a very real issue. But, I’m not going to leave animals to suffer if I can help them at all, just so I can point to their suffering and say, “look, they’re suffering, that’s bad, I in my vegan purity don’t support it, neither should others.” The people who I’m saying that to, if they’re on the ball, will say, “I agree, it’s bad, but didn’t you have that opportunity some time ago to improve their conditions? Why didn’t you take that opportunity?” And I’ll have to say, “I wanted them to continue to suffer so my argument is still strong.” Then that argument wouldn’t be very strong at all.

However, this doesn’t have to be an issue. There will always be welfare insults, as long as there is animal production. The solution lies not in leaving the animals to suffer in conditions we can improve, but in educating ourselves about the welfare insults of even the “best” farming systems.

I guess that’s a bit of a tangential issue, but it may have relevance and help to clarify things for some? Perhaps (or perhaps not) some people are worried that – if the animals’ living conditions appear to be ok, then the public aren’t going to pay attention to the rights debate? if so, this means the welfare issues are an important aspect of the rights debate, (at least in the real world, whether we like it or not)…

If animals were granted personhood, I imagine there would be a considerable period of adjustment and caring required for presently captive animals. I know of instances where rescued battery hens recover fully and revert to natural behaviours, so it is not inconceivable that the innate tendencies of animals would flourish under the right conditions, despite a previous life of sensory deprivation. Of course this would need to be monitored and some would be more psychologically and/or physically damaged than others.

I accept that you don’t agree, though I don’t understand why. Animal rights is a moral philosophy, which I think should allow us to act morally under varying conditions.

What if animal personhood were established? Would we leave captive lab animals in the wild when they have no idea how to live independently?

Like yourself, I’ve found the “average person” more inclined to consider abolition than ‘welfarists’, or as Chris said, animal husbandry activists. Maybe because, like the envirionmentalists you mentioned, their egos are in the way. Sorry if that’s not very nice, but I have to wonder.

Since mainstream media is a big problem, one thing I’ve tried to do is bring the animal rights message to it, via TV station message boards. To my surprise, two posters have told me they were interested in being vegetarian.

As I said, I don’t disagree at all with what you are saying, but if the animals cannot be released back into the wild, and they are endangered, then doesn’t that open the door for a captive breeding program? And, as you say, it is the interests of humans that are being served.

Niilo, I agree with you that environmentalists are extremely resistant to further lifestyle changes, and your experience echoes with a familiar ring. However, sometimes I feel that the toughest mobs are the ones that need to be focused on the most. The point of greatest resistance may yield the greatest change when it finally “gives”.

I used to waffle on the ‘welfare’ issue myself, primarily from lack of self-educating. However, as my ethics and mentality continue to evolve, I find it impossible to appreciate the efforts of self-proclaimed welfarists. As has become obvious from recent events, in my opinion, this middle ground stance is actually hurting the overall movement to an exploitation-free society. For instance, I fear that, as PETA and HSUS celebrate a huge ‘victory’ over veal crates, the consumption of veal calves will actually increase. It’s humane now, after all…

“Today, I find that acquaintances who still consume animals are more open minded to abolitionist principles than the everyday welfarist now is.”

Quoted for truth. In my time as a vegan advocate at university, I found environmentalists to be the most unlikely to accept changes to their lifestyles. How dare anyone suggest they weren’t doing all they could for the environment – after all, they put a brick in their toilet and use recycled paper. Now we have welfarists in the same frame of mind; they have deluded themselves into thinking that they are already doing all that they can.

CC, I’m making a judgment about bighorn sheep who have already been compromised by veterinary surgery, with doubt as to how they can function with amputations. Now that humans have changed their lives, there are other factors to consider.

Yes, the surgery seems to be welfarist, but I don’t know what happened to the sheep in the first place. Were they harmed by human interference with their environment? Where did human intrusion begin?

Also, I don’t think we can say they were returned to the wild on behalf of their freedom. Bighorn sheep are an endangered species, so I suspect people involved may have hoped some would have offspring. If that was their motive, it’s not about the personal interests of sheep at all. It’s about human interest in preserving a species.

But as I said, I don’t think it’s welfarist to care for animals in certain situations. We don’t “free our pets to the wild” because we know their ability to survive has been compromised by domestication. But we do
speak for their right not to be bred to accomodate our interests. We don’t free captive (free-living) animals, unless they know or have learned the skills they need to survive. Rather, we respect their freedom, and if they need rescue, we return their freedom as soon as they’re well enough to handle it. Often this means just entangling them from human intererence.

I think the animal rights position is based on a holistic respect of animals as personal beings. We can certainly respect them, even if we help them once in awhile, just as we help humans.