I'm working on building a better understanding of what strategies to prioritise when wanting to do the most good for animals but I haven't wanted to rely solely on EA sources and books recommended among EAs so I've participated in some animal advocacy groups in Finland as well.
One thing that has stood out to me, is that in EA we almost explicitly talk about 'animal welfare' whereas that term is seldom used in the animal advocacy spaces I've been to in Finland. For example, talking about'animal rights' is a more common.
Right now I'm reading a Finnish book on politics and animals where they discuss the differences between the animal protection movement and animal rights movement and how they've over time have converged. I once asked the author about 'welfarist'/reductionary vs. abolitionist approach knowing that there is internal disagreements in the movement around this topic. The brief response was that we're all working towards the same goal of eventually ending factory farming.
Why is it that 'animal welfare' is a term so widely used in EA? I assume it is not a random choice.
I guess (some people) might have negative associations with 'animal rights', from more radical activism done by some animal rights organisations. When doing marginal improvements e.g. through corporate campaigns, improving 'animal welfare' might avoid this and also result in less cognitive dissonance for the parties. On the other the framework of animal rights can also be valuable, acknowledging that non-human animals should have rights to wellbeing, the same way there are human rights and children's rights. Does this make sense to you?
Is it then rather a difference in the theory of change of the actors? An organisation focused on legislations and policy making might focus on animal rights while those advocating for more humane industry practices talk about animal welfare? Where does the vegan, consumer focused movement stand in this? Would Open Philantropy's farmed animal welfare unit do different grantmaking decisions if its name was OP farmed animal rights? Same for EA Funds animal welfare fund.
Curious to hear different thoughts. And please share a bit of your relation to EA/FAW/animal advocacy if you're comfortable, so it's easier to put the comments in context.
Here's what I personally think about using welfare vs. rights jargon in my advocacy. These are some unpolished thoughts that I'm hoping to explore further in the future.
Pro welfare:
Some anti-incrementalist animal advocates try to gatekeep the term "animal rights". They frequently complain when incrementalist folks use the expression "animal rights". When I ask these advocates "What kind of empirical evidence would change your mind" sometimes I get the response "No biased study in this speciesist world would make me sell out my principles. Just like no evidence could convince me there could be merits to torture, I'm never going to negotiate on the basic rights of animals". This makes me react "Ok, in that case I'm not going to swear allegiance to your banner and I will grow what I believe to be good".
Existing animal advocacy is already heavy on rights. Focusing on welfare jargon allows me to raise a distinct banner, differentiate my brand and organise people who are more sympathetic towards welfarist thinking.
I'm happy with the philosophical welfarist tradition and their moral leadership on many issues. I want to signal continuity with that tradition.
Rights based jargon is in strong tension with non-violent communication. Rights based jargon invokes a frame in which some people are sinners and should be punished. I'm not sure how useful non-violent communication is. But if it's useful then it's better to avoid rights jargon.
When I look at the arguments themselves before taking peer disagreement into account, my first-order beliefs are very consequentialist. I think arguments against the significance of personal identity and arguments against the moral significance of act/omission or intend/foresee distinction are powerful and correct. As the main purpose of the communication is to make myself clear to the relevant stakeholders, welfare jargon is better equipped to make my beliefs clear.
Pro rights
Many people understand mere moral standing in terms of rights. Saying "animals have rights" is basically equivalent to saying "animals have moral standing" for these people. So singling out animals by talking about "animal welfare" when the whole world talks about "human rights" might diminish perceived moral standing of animals.
In Turkish civil society, the term "rights based" is used to differentiate organisations that play by the rules of international human rights framework. I'm a huge fan of these norms and I'm happy to play by that book. Refusing being "rights based" because of my philosophical commitments would confuse people about where I stand in a political divide.
Since I take peer disagreement very seriously, I give significant credence to rights based theories and I'm not a welfarist. I also would like basic legal human rights to be extended to non-human animals. Avoiding rights terminology makes it harder to communicate this aspect of my thinking.
I want to maintain that incrementalist animal advocacy and wild animal welfare work are actually compatible with a rights based ethical theory. By avoiding rights language, I fear conceding this framework entirely to anti incrementalist advocates.
Interesting – I hadn't heard that point of view before.
I think I see where you're coming from, but I would say any kind of moral advocacy is in tension with nonviolent communication. You can go from talking about about "improving farmed animal welfare with systemic interventions" to "you are unnecessarily hurting animals by not being vegan" all in the language and framework of welfare.
This line of yours definitely continues to feel too strong to me:
>Rights based jargon is in strong tension with non-violent communication. Rights based jargon invokes a frame in which some people are sinners and should be punished.