That includes presidents, members of Congress, big-company crony capitalists, and corporate welfarists.
|
|
One of the key criticisms that Francione makes of welfarists and new welfarists is that welfarism reform simply doesn’t work, and in fact is harmful to the cause as welfare reform is argued to make people more comfortable with animal exploitation, and therefore less likely to stop using animals. Welfare reform is also claimed to make the animal exploitation industry more efficient.Francione, Rain Without Thunder, pg 12 Carcass damage occurs when food animals are improperly slaughtered and bruise themselves in their deathroes. Welfare reform to slaughter animals more humanely reduces the likelihood of this occurring, improving profits and public image for animal slaughterers. Francione argues that advocating for welfare reform does nothing to challenge the ‘research establishment’, and in fact that the livestock industry already advocates welfare reform.
|
|
The word relates to the historical term abolitionism--a social movement to end slavery or human ownership of other humans. Gary Francione, professor of law and philosophy at Rutgers School of Law–Newark, argues from the abolitionist perspective that self-described animal-rights groups who pursue welfare concerns, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, risk making the public feel comfortable about its use of animals. He calls such groups the "new welfarists", arguing that, though their aim is an end to animal use, the reforms they pursue are indistinguishable from reforms agreeable to traditional welfarists, who he says have no interest in abolishing animal use. He argues that reform campaigns entrench the property status of animals, and validate the view that animals simply need to be treated better.
|
|
New welfarists argue that there is no logical or practical contradiction between abolitionism and "welfarism". Welfarists think that they can be working toward abolition, but by gradual steps, pragmatically taking into account what most people can be realistically persuaded to do in the short as well as the long term, and what suffering it is most urgent to relieve. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, for example, in addition to promoting local improvements in the treatment of animals, promote vegetarianism. Although some people believe that changing the legal status of nonhuman sentient beings is a first step in abolishing ownership or mistreatment, there may be ample evidence that this is not the case if the consuming public has not already begun to reduce or eliminate its exploitation of animals as their own food.
|
|
He said that such libertarian conservatism was "hijacked" by neoconservatism, "by the very enemies it was formed to fight – Fabians, New Dealers, welfarists, progressives, globalists, interventionists, militarists, nation builders, and all the rest of the collectivist ilk that was assiduously working to destroy the Founders' Republic of States".Hultberg, Nelson (December 20, 2006). "True Conservatism vs. Neo-Conservatism". Americans for a Free Republic. .
|
|
The Animal Welfare Act, passed in 1966 and amended in 1985, is heralded as a victory by welfare advocates, but is useless according to Francione, and is indistinguishable from the status quo. Francione claims that the methodology of new welfarists in pursuing welfare reform cannot result in the abolition of their legal property status, which he argues is what matters most. Further, he argues that the short and long term goals of new welfarism are in direct conflict.
|
|
New welfarism was coined by Gary L. Francione in 1996. It is a view that the best way to prevent animal suffering is to abolish the causes of animal suffering, but advancing animal welfare is a goal to pursue in the short term. Thus, for instance, new welfarists want to phase out fur farms and animal experiments but in the short-term they try to improve conditions for the animals in these systems, so they lobby to make cages less constrictive and to reduce the numbers of animals used in laboratories. Within the context of animal research, many scientific organisations believe that improved animal welfare will provide improved scientific outcomes.
|
|
New welfarists are those that argue the best path to animal rights or abolition is through welfare reform and believe that welfare reform will make humans more receptive to inherently valuing animals. Francione argues that new welfarism does not work, and actually prolongs animal exploitation. Francione describes the welfarist or new welfarist movement as simply advocating for "longer chains for the slaves". Francione describes the differing philosophies of Peter Singer and Tom Regan toward animal use. He criticises heavily the utilitarian position of Singer, who believes that animal use is acceptable so long as their interests are given equal consideration to humans, and praises Regan’s deontological position of giving all animals rights.
|
|
In Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement (1996), Francione argues that there are significant theoretical and practical differences between animal rights, which he maintains requires the abolition of animal exploitation, and animal welfare, which seeks to regulate exploitation to make it more humane. Francione contends that the theoretical difference between these two approaches is obvious. The abolitionist position is that we cannot justify our use of nonhumans however "humanely" we treat animals; the regulationist position is that animal use is justifiable and that only issues of treatment are relevant. Francione describes as "new welfarists" those who claim to support animal rights, but who support animal welfare regulation as the primary way to achieve incremental recognition of the inherent value of nonhumans.
|
|
Battery cages have already banned in several countries including all European Union member states (since 2012 under European Union Council Directive 1999/74/EC), Norway (since 2012) and Switzerland (since 1992). New Zealand will phase out battery cages by 2022 and Canada by 2036. Prototype commercial furnished cage systems were being developed in the 1980s. As alternatives to battery cages, the EU Council Directive allowed non-cage systems and furnished cages. Furnished cages therefore represent a feasible alternative to battery cages in the EU after 2012. Austria banned battery cages in 2009 and is set to ban furnished cages by 2020. Belgium officially prohibits battery cages for meat rabbits since 1 January 2020 and will also prohibit enriched cages from 31 January 2024. However, the alternative system of 'park cages', in which groups of at least 20 animals are given 800 cm² per animal (12.5 rabbits per m²) has also faced heavy criticism from animal welfarists, especially when in early 2020 the Flemish Centre for Agro and Fishery Marketing (VLAM) launched a campaign to consume more rabbit meat. Germany introduced a ‘family cage’, which has more space than the furnished cages used in other countries; however, consumers in Germany had reportedly been rejecting these eggs by 2011. Caged farming was eventually banned in Germany in 2015, with a transition period to 2025.
|
|