RIGHTS VS. WELFARE

We've had some great conversations about the distinctions between a rights perspective and a welfare perspective, and I think the following passage from Tom Regan's "Understanding Animal Rights Violence" is useful (from The Animal Ethics Reader, p. 616):

When it comes to what we humans are morally permitted to do to other animals, it is safe to say that opinion is divided. Some people (abolitionists) believe that we should stop using nonhuman animals, whether as sources of food, as trained performers, or as models of various diseases, for example. Others (welfarists) think such utilization is permissible as long as it is done humanely. Those who accept the former outlook [abolitionists] object to such utilization in principle and believe it should end in practice. Those who accept the latter outlook [welfarists] accept such utilization in principle and believe it may continue in practice, provided the welfare of animals is not unduly compromised, in which case these practices will need to be appropriately reformed. Clearly real differences separate these two ways of thinking, one abolitionist at its core, the other not. Anyone who would deny or attempt to minimize these differences would distort rather than describe the truth.

According to Regan's passage, some keys distinctions between abolitionist and welfarist perspectives have to do with abolishing versus reforming the use of NHA and basic perspectives on the principle of NHA use. Some key questions: how is "humane use" defined? How is "unduly compromised" defined? And how is "welfare" defined?

For more on the abolitionist approach, see for example Gary Francione's website:

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/