VeggieBoards banner

1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Which do you agree more with, animal welfare or animal rights?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,744 Posts
Animal abolition, in which animal welfare and animal rights are just a part of the pie for the abolition of non-human animal slavery.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,067 Posts
Animal rights. As an ethical philosophy, animal welfare is the view that non-human interests, even interests in life and avoiding suffering, can be sacrificed for the sake of various human interests (often just economic ones). As an ethical philosophy, AW is fundamentally unjust, unjustified and poorly grounded in moral argument.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,744 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Sevenseas</strong> <a href="/forum/post/2900110"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Animal rights. As an ethical philosophy, animal welfare is the view that non-human interests, even interests in life and avoiding suffering, can be sacrificed for the sake of various human interests (often just economic ones). As an ethical philosophy, AW is fundamentally unjust, unjustified and poorly grounded in moral argument.</div>
</div>
<br>
But as a methodology, AW is an approach that can, given the recalcitrance of the speciesist systems we live in, create real change. However, I think that whatever approach one takes, AR or AW; one's ultimate goal should be non-human animal liberation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,090 Posts
I'm definitely more into Animal Welfare. In my opinion Animal Rights is more of a religious belief that's easily dismissed by anyone who doesn't buy into your ideologies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,097 Posts
There's no difference. If you care about animals and are working to alleviate their suffering, you believe in the same things anyone else doing that believes in. In fact, most people in the general population already believe those things, and our best bet for a better future is forgoing pointless labels and applying our talents towards raising awareness about the suffering of innocents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,067 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Josh James xVx</strong> <a href="/forum/post/2900199"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
If you care about animals and are working to alleviate their suffering, you believe in the same things anyone else doing that believes in.</div>
</div>
<br>
If we define "caring about animals" as caring enough about them not to participate in animal agriculture and other exploitation of animals, then yeah, there may not be a need for any distinction in terms of moral philosophy. That's because then you have already excluded a lot of people who believe in animal welfare.<br><br>
However, there are countless people who care about <i>some</i> animals <i>in some respects</i>, and who work to alleviate their suffering <i>in some respects</i>, all the while still eating meat, dairy and eggs. The worldview of those people should not be characterized as 'animal rights' (or framed indistinguishably from AR), so as not to create even more confusion to these terms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,319 Posts
Rights. But I'm not right <i>enough</i> for some because I don't dismiss bona-fide welfarists' efforts as pointless/divisive/harmful, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,245 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Sevenseas</strong> <a href="/forum/post/2900294"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
If we define "caring about animals" as caring enough about them not to participate in animal agriculture and other exploitation of animals, then yeah, there may not be a need for any distinction in terms of moral philosophy. That's because then you have already excluded a lot of people who believe in animal welfare.<br><br>
However, there are countless people who care about <i>some</i> animals <i>in some respects</i>, and who work to alleviate their suffering <i>in some respects</i>, all the while still eating meat, dairy and eggs. The worldview of those people should not be characterized as 'animal rights' (or framed indistinguishably from AR), so as not to create even more confusion to these terms.</div>
</div>
<br>
Thank you.<br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>sorrowthepig</strong> <a href="/forum/post/2900314"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Rights. But I'm not right <i>enough</i> for some because I don't dismiss bona-fide welfarists' efforts as pointless/divisive/harmful, etc.</div>
</div>
<br>
Why should that matter? Do whatever you think is right by other animals and don't worry about what the human ones think of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,744 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Sevenseas</strong> <a href="/forum/post/2900294"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
However, there are countless people who care about <i>some</i> animals <i>in some respects</i>, and who work to alleviate their suffering <i>in some respects</i>, all the while still eating meat, dairy and eggs. The worldview of those people should not be characterized as 'animal rights' (or framed indistinguishably from AR), so as not to create even more confusion to these terms.</div>
</div>
<br>
Then again there are people who work from a welfarist methodology while maintaining an abolitionist philosophy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,299 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Josh James xVx</strong> <a href="/forum/post/2900199"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
There's no difference. If you care about animals and are working to alleviate their suffering, you believe in the same things anyone else doing that believes in. In fact, most people in the general population already believe those things, and our best bet for a better future is forgoing pointless labels and applying our talents towards raising awareness about the suffering of innocents.</div>
</div>
<br>
You're wrong.<br><br>
I believe in animal rights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,067 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Rotoshave</strong> <a href="/forum/post/2900338"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Then again there are people who work from a welfarist methodology while maintaining an abolitionist philosophy.</div>
</div>
<br>
Yes. Francione's term for those people is 'new welfarist', to distinguish them from the people I brought up: people who support conservative welfarist reform because their ethical philosophy is that animals can be exploited and killed, but only "humanely".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
906 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>kpickell</strong> <a href="/forum/post/2900129"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
I'm definitely more into Animal Welfare. In my opinion Animal Rights is more of a religious belief that's easily dismissed by anyone who doesn't buy into your ideologies.</div>
</div>
<br>
Religious? AR doesn't require going to church or believing in God. AR people are passionate. Is that all you mean?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,319 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>SomebodyElse</strong> <a href="/forum/post/2900329"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Why should that matter? Do whatever you think is right by other animals and don't worry about what the human ones think of it.</div>
</div>
<br>
To me, it doesn't matter. I just state it in public and private to let people know I'll support efforts to make cages larger, even though I won't give a penny or a moment's time to buy the product.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,032 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Angelmeat</strong> <a href="/forum/post/2900075"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Which do you agree more with, animal welfare or animal rights?</div>
</div>
<br>
Animal rights. Animal welfare is more focused on the comforts of humans than it is on non-human animals.<br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>kpickell</strong> <a href="/forum/post/2900129"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
In my opinion Animal Rights is more of a religious belief that's easily dismissed by anyone who doesn't buy into your ideologies.</div>
</div>
<br><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":rolleyes:"> Yes, because anything you don't agree with must be more of a religious belief.
 

·
Riot Nrrrd
Joined
·
3,180 Posts
We should be careful to distinguish between animal rights as a political/social movement and animal rights as ethical philosophy. Many people in the animal rights movement do not subscribe to rights-based moral philosophy yet are not 'welfarists' even using Francione's rather broad definition (which on bad days seems to be 'anyone who disagrees with me on tactics' <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/smiley.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":)"> ).<br><br>
Just a thought ...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,090 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Bonn1997</strong> <a href="/forum/post/2900765"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Religious? AR doesn't require going to church or believing in God. AR people are passionate. Is that all you mean?</div>
</div>
<br>
Philosophical would be a better word.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,914 Posts
At the bare minimum, one would hope that all people should at least be opposed to torturing of animals for pleasure. Yet, by continuing to eat meat, this is precisely what virtually everyone in the population is doing. However, since it is unpleasant for people to acknowledge that they have a "pro-torture" position, they have invented a new term for this. This euphemism allows it to appear that one is concerned about the "welfare" of animals, when in reality it means just the opposite.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>nogardsram</strong> <a href="/forum/post/2901143"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Animal rights. Animal welfare is more focused on the comforts of humans than it is on non-human animals.</div>
</div>
<br>
I'm in between both animal rights and welfare and I disagree with what you say. Animal welfare focuses on the welfare of animals, not of humans. Pretty obvious, actually.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,067 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Angelmeat</strong> <a href="/forum/post/2902331"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Animal welfare focuses on the welfare of animals, not of humans.</div>
</div>
<br>
Except that human economic, aesthetic, scientific, culinary etc. interests are already implicitly incorporated into the very the ideal of a standard animal welfare view: avoiding "unnecessary" suffering and death. "Unnecessary" suffering and death is something that isn't needed to advance such human interests: callously exploiting animals in vivisection is okay in an animal welfare view, but only if there is no gratuitous sadism that doesn't further human scientific interests.
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Top