Animal Rights: An Incremental Approach

Abstract

Those concerned about animal protection have for some time now debated the relative merits of animal rights and animal welfare as alternative approaches to ameliorating the plight of nonhumans. This debate has aspects of both philosophical theory and political strategy that are somewhat complicated, at least in part, because those involved in the debate often use the terms in confused and inconsistent ways. For the most part, however, the rights position maintains that at least some animals are rightholders and that treating animals solely as means to human ends violates those rights. Rights advocates argue that practices that violate animal rights should be abolished and not merely regulated. The welfare position maintains that animal interests may be ignored if the consequences for humans justify it. Although welfarists may disagree about what counts as a consequence that will override an animal interest, all welfarists accept that animals may be killed or subjected to suffering based on some consequential considerations.²

This essay is adapted from Francione (1995). I acknowledge the marvellous assistance provided by Anna Charlton, the co-founder and co-director of the Rutgers Animal Rights Law Center. I have benefitted greatly from discussions with Tom Regan, Nancy Regan, Priscilla Cohn, Patty Shenker, Doug Stoll, and Shelton Walden. This essay is dedicated to The Bandit, one of my nonhuman companions who most generously supplies ideas and inspiration in the most unexpected ways, and who has very much informed my notion of what personhood really means.