Animal rights or animal well-being, does it matter?

Whoever takes animal rights seriously stops using and eating animals. Whatever philosophy you derive it from, this bold statement makes clear at once what the problem is for a political party that wants to take animal rights seriously. Nobody wants to be forced to make a choice they are not ready for, or to impose it on others. It also costs seats. So such a party chooses a solution that makes its message clear but does not threaten human freedom too much. This is called pragmatism.

A vague concept as a compromise

Many parties that sympathise with animals embrace a vague concept: the intrinsic value of the animal. Since 2013 it has even been part of Dutch law (Animals Act, article 1.3). Nobody knows exactly what it means. It is translated into something most people can accept: "respect" or "the right to a natural life". In the barns, this recognition has changed little.

Should a party that wants votes stay vague, then? Even so, it is worth saying precisely what animal rights are. And how they differ from animal welfare.

Animals, nature and the environment are vulnerable. Anyone with some social feeling gives up a little of their freedom for the vulnerable: a little more freedom for animals to lead a natural life, a little less for humans to make that possible. So far it is simple. But what does it mean in practice, for the farmers and the animals in factory farming?

A pig taking a refreshing bath in the mud

Animal welfare versus animal rights in practice

The example of the pig's tail

Factory farming takes little account of animal welfare. Producers want to produce as cheaply as possible and are afraid of losing their export position. Where, then, is the limit? Take the docking of pigs' tails. When pigs grow bigger, they bite each other's tails out of boredom. The farmer reasons: "If I dock the piglet's tail, I prevent the pig's welfare from being harmed more seriously later." Within the farmer's logic this is correct. A welfare-unfriendly measure prevents even more harm to welfare.

From the point of view of animal rights, based on whatever philosophy, it looks different. Docking is then a violation of bodily integrity. That is unacceptable. Indeed: factory farming as a whole goes against animal rights.

Routine tail docking has been banned in the EU since 2008. Yet in the Netherlands it is still done to almost all piglets. The Dutch government wants to phase it out by 2030, but the rules for this (the decree on animal-friendly livestock farming) had not yet been adopted in October 2026.

The "no, unless" principle

One way to avoid philosophical hair-splitting is the "no, unless" principle. Or you can state, as Dutch law does, that animals have interests that may only be harmed for a weighty reason. With "no, unless", the burden of proof lies with the farmer: he must show that his way of farming does not harm welfare. The farmer counters this easily. He says his farm has no negative effects on welfare. According to him, everything he does either cannot be done otherwise or prevents greater harm. Then try proving to a judge that he is wrong.

The five freedoms

For animals it is therefore better to think in terms of rights than of welfare. In practice the two concepts come together in the five freedoms: freedoms animals are entitled to, whose violation harms their welfare. Since 2013 they have also been part of the Dutch Animals Act.

Most farmers meet three of the five requirements, but hardly anyone meets all five. Above all, the right to normal, species-specific behaviour is violated. A reasonable person would give the animal access to the meadow. For the farming sector, a concrete outdoor pen is enough: the manure is easier to collect there. In 2024, 31 percent of Dutch dairy cows never went out to pasture. Whether that is just and sufficient, the sector leaves to the public and to politics.

The freedom to live according to your own capabilities

In her book "Justice for Animals", Martha Nussbaum (1947) works out the capabilities approach. According to this approach, welfare depends largely on the freedom animals have to arrange their lives as they see fit. In her view we have long been obliged to organise our society so that the interests of animals count as much as those of humans. Let's take animal rights seriously.

Sources: Dutch Animals Act (Wet dieren), article 1.3; EU Directive 2008/120 on pigs; consultation report on the Dutch decree on animal-friendly livestock farming (2026); Statistics Netherlands (CBS) on cows kept indoors all year (August 2025). Updated on 25 October 2026.