There is often confusion about the terms animal rights and animal welfare. You might hear the terms used interchangeably. People also use terms such as animal advocacy and animal protection, which only adds to the confusion. In this lesson, I'll try to shed some light on this issue. Distinguishing the animal welfare perspective from the animal rights perspective, can be summed up by borrowing the quote from philosopher Tom Reagan. Whereas animal welfare calls for bigger cages as well as other accommodations. Animal rights calls for empty cages. Although Peter Singer's book, Animal Liberation is known for sparking the animal rights movement. His perspective is one of animal welfare because he accepts that humans have the right to use animals, including killing them, as long as we don't cause them to suffer. The term animal welfare refers to concern for the well-being of animals. Animal rights also addresses animal's well-being, but it does so from a legal or ethical position that rejects our right to use them for our own purposes. Whereas people who support animal rights would oppose eating animals. Those who support animal welfare would be concerned with how the animals they eat were raised and whether they were killed humanely. Whereas the animal welfare view would call for sweeping changes in animal agriculture, the animal rights view would call for its abolition. You can advocate for improvements in the treatment of animals without claiming that animals have rights. Whereas animal rights is an absolute term applied to all animals across all settings, animal welfare depends on the context. A statement by the American Veterinary Medical Association says that animal welfare means how an animal is coping with the conditions in which it lives. An animal is in a good state of welfare if as indicated by scientific evidence, it is healthy, comfortable, well-nourished, safe, able to express innate behavior, and if it is not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear, and distress. With this in mind, welfare for animals in zoos differs from those on farms or in research laboratories. Regardless of setting, there are some basic principles of animal welfare that apply overall. These are found in what are known as the five freedoms. In the 1970s, the United Kingdom Farm Animal Welfare Council developed a set of recommendations for the welfare of animals raised for food. These became internationally accepted and recognize as the Five Freedoms. The Five Freedoms include freedom from hunger and thirst, addressed by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full health and vigor. Freedom from discomfort, which is accomplished by providing an appropriate environment, including shelter and a comfortable resting area. Freedom from pain, injury or disease addressed by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment. Freedom to express normal behavior, providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animal's own kind, and freedom from fear and distress, which involves ensuring conditions and treatment that avoid mental suffering. Although the Five Freedoms were developed for livestock, they've been adapted as standards for the welfare of animals under human care in diverse settings. They apply in zoos, animal shelters, farms, research laboratories and other places where animals depend on people for their care. When it comes to some issues, it's unclear whether giving animals rights or protecting their welfare would benefit animals more. For example, consider the animals in most countries are legally considered property, just like other objects that belong to you, such as your car, your computer, or your sunglasses, you own your pets. At first glance, it sounds bad to be considered someone else's property. In the case of pets, this means that it's within your legal rights to sell your pet or give your pet away. You can choose to breed your pet, or you couldn't choose to spay or neuter your pet. You can train your pet or not. Animal rights advocates reject the status of animals as property because their goal is ultimately ending the human use of animals, which includes owning them. Animal Welfare supports the responsible use of animals. While it might seem unkind to consider animals as property, veterinary organizations have argued that the status allows veterinarians to hold people accountable for the care of their pets. For example, if a dog is not technically owned by anyone, legal questions can be raised about who's responsible for that dogs welfare. In cases of cruelty and neglect, charges can only be brought against the owners of the affected animals. If a dog is not legally owned by anyone, legal questions arise about who can make decisions about spaying and neutering or about euthanasia for a dog who is suffering. Legal questions can also arise regarding compensation for harm a dog might cause to another person or another animal. One last thing. You might have heard animal welfare and animal rights dismissed as causes that deserve less attention than the so called real problems in the world or you might have heard that so and so cares more about animals than about people. As a sociologist, I'd be remiss not to address this. In 2019 two researchers used the general social survey, a representative poll done in the United States to study the relationship between support for animal rights and for human rights. The results gained international media attention. The researchers found that people who expressed support for animal rights were more likely to express support for LGBT rights, Universal health care, welfare for the poor, improving conditions for African-Americans, supporting birthright citizenship for US born children of undocumented immigrants. In short, people who support an expansive conception of human rights and welfare are also more likely to support animal rights. There you have it. When it comes to concern about vulnerable others, species doesn't matter.
