Dr Michael Morris Animal welfare writer nzchas.canterbury

It is often assumed that there is a marked contrast between advocates of improved animal welfare, and those demanding animal rights.

The former – exemplified by mainstream organisations like the SPCA, are respectable, law abiding, and realistic in their demands. The latter are represented in the mind of the public by hooded activists, and are wild eyed, misanthropic and violent. In fact, the difference between these groups is not as great as first impressions indicate, and the stereotyped dichotomy above is more a product of misinformation than genuine philosophical or sociological analysis.

Firstly, it is important to distinguish between support for a position, and the methods used to enforce the position. It is no more logical to assume all those advocating animal rights burn laboratories, than it is to assume all opponents of American hegemony fly aeroplanes into buildings.

It is also important to understand what is meant by ‘rights'. These are generally interpreted as a claim against society. So if I have a right to a free education, then society has an obligation to provide me with one. Animal rights activists consider that society has an obligation to leave animals alone and not to kill them, torture them or enslave them for trivial purposes. But animal welfareists would also agree that animals have some claims upon society. One societal expectation, backed up by the law, is that animals should not be subjected to ‘unnecessary' suffering.

Undercover footage of factory farms and slaughterhouses have left most people in little doubt that in New Zealand as elsewhere our insatiable demand for cheaper animal products result in an unconscionable and unacceptable amount of animal suffering. Eating any animal products is not necessary for a fulfilling and healthy existence, so such actions are certainly not ‘necessary' suffering in any sense of the world. The ‘necessity' of most animal experiment, especially those for cosmetic testing and agricultural production, are also in doubt.

The animal industries are using ‘divide and conquer' strategies by setting up a false dichotomy and antagonism between the ‘rights' and ‘welfare' camp. The truth is, that while there do remain some differences between the two sectors, they are differences of degree, not of kind. A society built upon sound and consistent animal welfare policies would be one where almost all current production methods of animal products, and most animal experiments would be prohibited. Advocates at both ends of the welfare/rights spectrum should be able to discuss the issues calmly and respectfully and reach a great deal of common ground.