Someone who takes animal rights seriously, whether or not this is done from a logical philosophy, stops using and eating animals. With this bold statement, it immediately becomes clear what then becomes the problem within a political party that wants to take animal rights seriously: nobody wants to be forced to make a choice, or to impose this choice onto others, when he or she is not ready for it yet. This also costs parliamentary seats.
Therefore, within a political party, a solution is chosen that does make its message clear, but does not threaten human freedom too much. This is called pragmatism. Does this make the question unnecessary about if and how precisely we define animal rights, and whether it differs from animal welfare? We had better try.
Animals, nature and environment are vulnerable, and a socially feeling person sacrifices a bit of his freedom in favor of the vulnerable. A little more freedom for animals to be able to lead a natural life, and a little bit less for humans to make this possible. So far, it is simple. But then in practice: what does this mean for the interests of the farmers and the animals in the bio-industry? |
Animal welfare versus animal rights in practice
In the bio-industry, animal welfare is barely taken into account, because producers want to produce as cheaply as possible, and are afraid of losing their export position. Where, then, is the boundary? What is still allowed and what is not anymore? If, within the bio-industry, we take the example of the docking of pigs' tails, then we get the following considerations. A farmer docks pigs' tails because pigs, when they grow bigger, bite each other's tails out of boredom. The farmer then reasons "if I dock the tail of a piglet, then later, the welfare of the young pig will not be affected more severely". This is correct within the farmers' logic. A welfare-unfriendly measure is being taken to prevent even more welfare-unfriendliness. If you approach this situation from animal rights (based on whatever philosophy), then this docking would be called a violation of bodily integrity, and unacceptable. Indeed: the entire bio-industry contradicts animal rights.
The five freedoms
Thus, for animals it is better to think in terms of rights than of welfare. In practice, the two concepts come together in the five freedoms, to which animals have the right, and whose infringement harms welfare. Most farmers meet three of the five welfare requirements, but none meet them all. In particular, the right to display species-specific and natural behavior is being violated. Every reasonable person would meet this requirement by giving the animal access to the meadow, but for the agricultural sector, a concrete outdoor pen is sufficient. With this, they can more easily collect the manure and, consequently, prevent environmental problems. Whether this is just and sufficient, they leave for review by the public and politics. Let's take animal rights seriously. |
