Rights versus welfare

[Guest guest]

Dear all,

I thank everyone who has taken the time and trouble to address

this issue. It is true that there is a difference in approach in Western and

Eastern attitudes to animals. I also appreciate the acknowledgement that AfA

is principally an animal welfare forum and think it is magnanimous of Kim to

suggest more animal rights issues in future AfA conferences. What I find

disappointing is that the audience erupts into applause whenever there is

talk of humane culling(as in Madras) and humane slaughter(as in Bali). Even

in Singapore, a prominent animal welfare advocate mentioned that she found

humane slaughter comfortable. Slavery is a good example where rights could

not have been achieved by humane treatment. Also the movement against the

death penalty regardless of the method of killing.

Regarding the Egyptian fatwa, as a rationalist I think it is dangerous to

advocate morality by issuing fatwas. I hope no one takes offence regarding

this but Islam as a religion does not preach compassion towards human beings

who are not Islamic, leave alone animals. I could quote scores of passages

from the Quran to cement my view. The American writer Sam Harris has written

extensively on this and I could share his writings with anyone interested to

explore this issue further. Islam does encourage exploitation of animals.

Also if we follow fatwas to be kind to animals, what prevents us from

adhering to fatwas that urge individuals to fly aeroplanes into skyscrapers?

Whose fatwa is authentic and why should I give more importance to one over

another if both are coming from equally venerable sources?

Regardless of what philosophical orientation we orient ourselves to

regarding animal rights and welfare, it seems quite cogent that animal

welfare accepts animal exploitation whilst trying to make abusive activities

less cruel. Thus animal welfarists would find it acceptable to have two more

square inches of cage space for a factory farmed chicken, elephant polo

matches without the ankus, bigger and better enriched cages in zoos etc. But

animal rights activists would like to put an end to these practices, ie.,

factory farming, animal entertainment and animal captivity. In my view,

short term humane measures are only welcome in so far as they are a step

towards phasing the practice out altogether. Being comfortable with

welfarist measures might mean feeling less guilty whilst eating meat or

seeing animals in captivity. Also welfare measures have been widely abused

and compromised such as the 'Freedom Food' scheme of the RSPCA and live

animal transportation in UK. Keith Mann has commented quite extensively on

compromises made by animal welfare organisations whilst promoting better

welfare schemes for animals that are eventually killed in his book 'From

Dusk 'til Dawn'.

I think the Bali Zoo is a good example of the conflict between animal

rights and welfare. From the animal righst point of view, the zoo should be

closed or phased out specially considering that ghastly conditions in which

it is incarcerating animals. But the welfare perspective would push for

better enrichment and improvement of enclosures. Improvement, I ask? Can

anyone speak out for improvement of the bird cages that are at the entrance

of Bali Zoo housing Golden Orioles? They are reminescent of the awful cages

that people use to keep pet birds. The only solution I see is to open the

doors of those cages and let the Golden Orioles fly out. Also I was left

very disillusioned about what was planned for the future of Bali Zoo. During

the zoo session, I heard all good things about improved conditions in the

zoo. Then I visited the zoo and saw the concentration camp like conditions

for myself. Later I heard the zoo is trying to procure elephants, perish the

thought! And I also heard that the owner has fallen out with the consultant

of the zoo who now wants it closed. Now it leaves me befuddled from both a

welfare and rights perspective on what to do with the zoo. I personally

suggested that the zoo should not acquire new animals and should not breed

any more animals. From both the animal rights and welfare viewpoints, I

reckon the suggestions stand their ground but from a purely welfarist stance

one could argue for the continued existence of Bali Zoo through enrichment

measures and better cages.

The goals of animal welfare and animal rights can meet on occasions. We saw

this during the elephant polo campaign and no one can deny that both

welfarists and rightists have the wellbeing of the animals in mind. It is

just that in many instances, animal rights activists take an extra step

further. To take the example of Richard Dawkins on religion, we are all

atheists in relation to Zeus and Apollo and the millions of Gods worshipped

by ancient people. It is just that avowed atheists go one step further.

So whilst I certainly am in favour of humane treatment of animals that will

eventually be killed, I also emphasise that we should not forget that our

ultimate aim is to put an end to the killing itself just as it is our

objective to see an end to all forms of animal exploitation. Whilst we may

differ in our approaches, there is no harm in talking. The AfA Bali

conference was a good place to do this. I certainly had enlightening

discussions with people harbouring different views and I hope that future

AfA conferences will keep the channel of communication flowing between

animal rights activists and animal welfarists.

Best regards,

 

Sincerely,