If you follow animal rights strictly, you do not eat "humane" veal; you eat tofu. You do not buy "free-range" leather; you buy canvas. You do not visit a zoo with "enriched habitats"; you watch a documentary.
The most visible modern manifestation of animal rights is the legal personhood movement. Lawyers are currently filing habeas corpus petitions (traditionally used to free unjustly imprisoned humans) on behalf of chimpanzees and elephants. In 2016, an Argentine court declared a chimpanzee named Cecilia to be a "non-human legal person" and ordered her freed from a zoo.
For the activist and the consumer, labeling matters.
If you support animal welfare, you will donate to the Humane Society or the RSPCA. You will buy "cage-free" or "free-range" eggs. You will support Proposition 12 (which bans gestation crates). You view yourself as a reformer. If you follow animal rights strictly, you do
If you support animal rights, you will donate to PETA or Direct Action Everywhere. You will boycott all animal products, not just those with better labels. You will support grassroots efforts to liberate animals from farms. You view yourself as an abolitionist.
Despite their differences, the two movements are not enemies. Historically, rights advocates have been the "radical flank" that makes welfarist reforms seem moderate. When rights activists demand an end to all slaughter, the public is more likely to accept a ban on slaughter without pre-stunning.
Furthermore, the science of animal sentience is catching up with the rights philosophy. Dr. Jonathan Balcombe and others have shown that fish feel pain, chickens have complex social hierarchies, and pigs exhibit optimism and pessimism (affective states). As we learn more, the welfarist position becomes harder to maintain. If an animal has a complex inner life, can simply providing "freedom from fear" be enough if we still intend to kill it? This technology renders the welfare vs
We are living through a technological inflection point. For the first time in 12,000 years of domestication, we no longer need animals to produce meat, milk, or eggs.
This technology renders the welfare vs. rights debate partially obsolete. If you can have a real hamburger without any suffering or death, a welfare advocate and a rights advocate will both say: "Yes, please."
The true battle in the next decade will not be between PETA and the Beef Council. It will be between tolerable welfare (cage-free, free-range) and post-animal production (cultivated, plant-based, fermented). To put it bluntly: A welfarist wants a bigger cage
Most people assume these terms are synonyms. They are not. Understanding the difference is the first step to forming your own ethical compass.
To put it bluntly: A welfarist wants a bigger cage. An abolitionist wants an empty cage.